1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
and
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
City/County Joint Programs Budget Workshop
Tuesday, July 29, 2003
4:00 p.m.
City Council Chambers
800 Junction Highway
Kerrville, Texas
P R E S E N T
Kerrville City Council:
STEPHEN P. FINE, Mayor
DAVID WAMPLER, Mayor Pro Tem
OLLIE D. BROWN, Place 1
LARRY W. HOWARD, Place 2
EUGENE C. SMITH, Place 4
RON PATTERSON, City Manager
Kerr County Commissioners Court:
PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4

U
25
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
July 29,2003
PAGE
Call to Order 3
1. Discussion of Joint Budgeted items between
City/County including, but not limited to:
a.	Fire Protection/ Emergency Management	8
b.	EMSIFirst Responder	39
c.	Prisoner Support	68
d.	Narcotics Task Force	71
e.	Airport Operations	76
f.	Recycling	123
g.	Library	147
h.	Animal Control	159
i.	Tax Collection	163
2. Discussion of other potential Joint Ventures
including, but not limited to:
a. Municipal Court 166
b. Subdivision rules and regulations in
Kerrville ETJ 172
Adjourned 186
~-29-03 jcc
3
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
On Tuesday, July 29, 2001, at 4:00 p.m., a joint
meeting of the Kerrville City Council and the Kerr County
Commissioners Court was held at City Council Chambers, 800
Junction Highway, Kerrville, Texas, and the following
proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
MAYOR FINE: We're going to call the meeting
to order. This is a joint program budget work session
between City of Kerrville City Council and the Kerr County
Commissioners Court, Tuesday, July 29th, 2003. We want to
welcome everyone here this evening, especially welcome the
County Commissioners and whoever else they brought along
with them, and welcome the -- everyone in the audience and
media who are here today. This meeting is to discuss our
joint ventures projects, ownership that we have between the
City and the County. We're going to -- I guess you need to
call your meeting to order also. Why don't you go ahead and
do that?
JUDGE TINZEY: I'll call to order the
Commissioners Court portion of the City/County joint
programs budget workshop. For the record, all Commissioners
and the Judge are present, and joined by the members of the
City Council in the matter, all being present.
MAYOR FINE: Okay. The first item on the
agenda is a discussion and appropriate action, if needed, of
7-29-03 jcc
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
joint-budgeted items between City/County, including, but not
limited to, fire suppression/emergency management -- you
want me to do -- I'll just go ahead and list them all; then
we can just buzz right through them. EMS medical
support/First Responder, prisoner support, police task
force, airport operations, community recycling center,
library, animal control, and tax collection. Mr. Patterson,
I believe you're going to lead us on this one.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Thank y'all very
much for taking time out of your busy schedules to be with
us tonight, and really do appreciate it. I'm going to
hand -- there's another handout for you here. What this is,
is it's a copy of the Power Point presentation. It has some
additional slides in it, that type thing. We've created a
little pamphlet for you where you can take notes on the
right-hand side if you'd like to. We've provided some
pencils and other things if you need that. If you need some
more paper or anything, please let us know; we'll be glad to
provide that. But this way, we can just walk through this.
Give you -- yeah, they're going to make more
copies of these, so pass them around till they run out, and
then if you need more, Brian will be back with some more.
The format -- the format for this evening that we thought we
would do -- or this afternoon, I should say, is that we
would -- staff will present for you the information
7-~9-03 jcc
5
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
summaries, let you take a look at that, and then obviously
we would like to ask you to either ask questions during the
comment period, or after we've finished presenting the
information to you. Either way will work for us. We're
very flexible to whichever one you want to do. If you want
to stop us midstream, please feel free to do so. If,
however, you would like to wait till the end of that, that's
fine just as well. The way that we have planned to do this
this afternoon is that I'm going to do the summary
information, provide that to you, go through that with you
today. I will be the primary speaker, and then I do have
our staff here with regard to any specific questions within
the departments or the departmental budgets, so they can
answer those for you. I will admit, I don't know every line
item by heart, so obviously, they -- they have those budgets
and can answer some of those questions for you. Let me see
if I can get this fired up here.
MAYOR FINE: Ron, are we going to try to go
through each topic and allow that staff person to leave? Or
are they going to stay the entire time?
MR. PATTERSON: They can leave after they
finish that. However, if you feel like there's going to be
additional discussion at the end of the meeting, if you want
to do it that way, the staff members can stay.
MAYOR FINE: Okay, pal.
7-_y-03 jcc
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: I'll be glad to do that
either way you would like to. Okay. At the end of each
one, I will be asking if you want them to stay or not, or if
you feel like it's completed with regard to that. With
regard to this, the first thing that I wanted to be able to
do for you today -- first thing's not going to work.
MAYOR FINE: There's Brian.
MR. PATTERSON: First thing that we'll do
today, without that, is I would like for you to refer to the
summary sheet that is in the very front of your notebook,
which is under Tab 2. I wanted to touch very quickly on a
couple of changes. You'll note that when you came in, staff
was changing out a couple pages, and I wanted to explain
those changes to you. I apologize for the last minute of
that; however, they're good changes. They're a savings.
And one of the things that I would like to do is, if you
look at that sheet, Commissioners and Council members, you
should have on there highlighted areas that are either in
yellow or red or purple, and what you'll note is that in
those areas that are highlighted in yellow or the purple,
were changes that were made from the time that we were able
to publish this document several weeks ago.
What I'd like to point out to you is that, if
you look under EMS Medical Director, you'll see that that
number went down from 21,916 to 19,342. Under the First
7-29-03 jcc
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,- 13
14
l5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
-.-
25
Responders, that went down to 13,331, thus changing the
numbers at the bottom on the City for the FY '04 of the
$1.8 million under the EMS and medical director. Again,
we'll be going through all these numbers in detail, but what
I'm wanting to point out to you is simply the fact that,
overall, we had a net reduction for County participation of
$8,260 because two things happened. One is that we made a
discovery as we were going through this, in that the EMS
Coordinator was able to go ahead and complete a course that
he had been working on for some time, and is going to be
able to take care of the First Responder training in this
current fiscal year, and will not need that additional
$6,000 that was in there previously. And, again, we will go
through that in detail as I get there, but that is part of
the change.
The other change is that our medical
director -- on that particular item, we also found that
there was a reduction last year in that amount that we did
not pick up when we published the document. So, the bottom
line is, that went from a $25,000 cost to a $20,000 cost.
It's about 20 -- $2,500 apiece that we saw a savings there.
So, again, I will go through that in great detail, but I
just wanted to point out to you that there has been some
minor changes. They are all to the good in terms of -- they
are savings with regard to the cost of those programs.
7-~9-03 jcc
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
Other than that, I'm ready to go ahead and move into each of
the items, if would you like me to, or if you have any
specific questions on those changes that I just went over.
Okay. The -- you may want to pull out that spreadsheet
that's under Tab 2. It's up to you, but you can set that to
the side as we go through each of the tabs and you can see
the totals on that spreadsheet as we go through each of
these items.
The first item for discussion this evening is
the fire suppression and EMS contract. A little bit of
history here. You may recall that approximately 12 years
ago, the City and the County entered into an agreement
whereby there is fire service provided by the city fire
department out into the outlying areas, outside the city
limits. Originally, that contract started with an issue in
the Kerrville South area, which, when we say Kerrville
South, however, it's much larger than the definition that
most people think of with regard to the size of the area.
As a matter of fact, let me show you this, and we'll go back
to it. What you see in the yellow area is the city of
Kerrville. What you see in the purple area is what is
defined as the area within the Kerrville South contract --
or fire service contract. The remainder, which is in the
green, is in what we call the general contract for fire
25 ~ services out into the county.
-29-G3 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
?. 3
24
25
9
With regard to this, again, there was a -- a
contract that was put together approximately 12 years ago;
was examined. Everyone agreed at that point in time that,
you know, providing this service was the right thing to do
to be able to get that -- the service out there. In
addition to that, during that time frame as well, there was
also an Emergency Manager Coordinator position that was
created. In that time frame, there was some discussion
about being able to manage and -- and deal with emergency
management overall. You'll recall that this last year, we
obviously put that into full swing with the flood of last
summer. That operation went into effect whereby we have our
Fire Chief, who acts as the emergency operations center
manager for the county. And when I say "the county," I mean
all of us; I mean that in a -- an egalitarian term with all
of us.
The bottom line is -- is that during that
time frame, you will recall that the mayor was called in,
the county -- the then County Judge; we also had the
Sheriff, as well as department heads from the City who were
called into the emergency operations center, and that
facility was stood up. But, again, all of that
responsibility with regard to coordinating that, those
actions, not only emergency operations center, but also
execution of our emergency operations plan falls on the
-~9-0~ ~cc
10
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
emergency management coordinator position that was created.
And, again, that falls to the Fire Chief and his assistants.
Let me back up here. In looking at the
information for this last year, in looking at call volumes
as well as, you know, what the cost is with regard to
providing these services, both for the emergency operations
manager as well as for the fire suppression overall, what we
are proposing and requesting is that you'll see here in this
summary right now, we currently have a general contract for
providing the fire service of $65,000. That is to provide
that entire area that you saw in the green that was on the
map. There is a proposal at this point in time to recommend
or request a $25,000 increase to that particular contract.
And I'm going to walk through the numbers and run the call
numbers and everything in just a moment; I'll show you all
the data behind that.
In addition to that, there's also the
Kerrville South area, which was the area that you saw that
was defined in that -- in that purple area on the map. As a
matter of fact, let me do this. As you can see here on the
map, again, as I said, in the purple area, it's somewhat
misleading calling it Kerrville South, because so many
people think of just that small Kerrville South area, but
that's not what's described in the description within the
agreement. In addition to that, you'll see there that that
-29-03 jcc
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
11
would be a subtotal of $125,000 for those services. The
City's proposed budget at this point in time -- and, again,
the Council is seeing these numbers, as you have, again, in
this budget presentation for the first time --
at $2.6 million overall for the fire suppression services.
Backup data here is we have an average of about 500 calls
for the last nine months. We have now -- and, again, I'll
show you this data in a moment. There's an extrapolation
out for the -- an 11-year period, taking 2003-2004 as well,
and including that data. The nine-year average is about a
21 percent call volume outside the city; 24 percent -- and
the current year-to-date is about 24 percent. However, if
this extrapolates out like it has over the last several
years, that will probably drop down to be around the
21 percent, 20 percent range. I can show you those numbers
here in just one second.
You've already seen the map. Basically, what
we have here for you is, we have a breakdown of the fire
suppression run counts and percentages. What you'll see
here is we -- we do keep track of the runs with regard to
runs that are within the corporate city limits and those
that are outside.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, excuse me. Do you
keep track of the difference between the purple area and
green area?
~-~9-03 jcc
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: Actually, we -- we tried to
see if we could take that and break it out. The way we
currently have it coded, the answer is no, we cannot at this
point in time. However, it's something that we are going to
try and do in the future and code those so that we can keep
those separately for you. But it's a good question, about
looking at the -- as a matter of fact, we tried to do that
in preparation for this, and we were not able to do that.
As of right now, you'll see that you have an average here of
about 109 runs outside the corporate limits, 443 runs in the
city. The percent that are county runs is averaging about
20 percent, 19.8 percent. With that -- Brian, would you
help me out? I also have a copy of this chart as well as
the others, 'cause I would like you to have that data to be
able to take with you.
One of the things that we did with that data
was, we also did a -- a linear trend analysis on it. Bottom
line, it says we're going to take an average out over the
numbers every year, and what does it look like it's going to
do if it continues based on the past trend? And what you'll
see is -- is that, overall, the call volume in the city
as -- as a result -- as a total of the total run volume is
actually on a decline, whereas on the county, it is on an
incline. It's not a huge incline, but it is an incline.
Again, this shows you both what the actual call volumes are,
~-29-G3 jcc
13
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
both in the purple and the blue line, and then the linear
projection to show you what the trend analysis is in the
yellow and the red line. Are there any questions thus far?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got a question.
Can you turn it back to the map?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The County contracts
with eight entities to provide fire protection in the city,
City of Kerrville and seven volunteer fire departments. And
if you examine that geographic area that the City of
Kerrville provides the service compared to the rest of the
county, it's -- it's roughly one-eighth, somewhere around
there, pretty close. City of Kerrville is providing service
to us for approximately one-eighth of the geographic area.
The -- the population or the density of residents is
probably greater than some of the volunteer fire department
areas, but not greater than all of them. So, what I'm
looking at is, if we're paying the City of Kerrville now
$100,000, maybe $125,000 a year, to do what we pay the other
seven entities, the other seven aides to the County, a total
of $77,000 a year, so either we made a heck of a deal
dealing with the other seven agencies, or we didn't make a
very good deal with the City of Kerrville. I got one more
question, and I want to look at the data on the number of
calls. This one.
-~9-03 jcc
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The County has grown
over that 10-year period. I don't know what percentage of
change is; somebody here probably does, but I can't account
for why the number of calls have doubled, what we're doing.
Is Kerrville doing -- providing different kinds of service
than 10 years ago? Or do we have more fires, or what's
going on?
MR. PATTERSON: I think I'm going to let the
Chief answer that.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, let me get the chart.
MR. PATTERSON: Go back to that.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Now, the only year that they
actually -- 1994, that was the only year that was really
down. If you'll look at the others, it's -- except for '99,
it's staying pretty -- pretty much on the average of a
little over 100 calls. We've got a couple years that are up
and a couple years are down. You know, it's real hard to
tell -- you know, one year we may have a lot of grass fires
or brush fires and we assist in the county, and another year
we may not have any. This year, as wet as it is, we may not
go into the county much for those type of fires. And this
includes automobile accidents. It's not just structure
fires or grass fires, but there's automobile accidents, and
we -- that's in this figure also. We cover a lot of the
-29-03 ~cc
15
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
interstate for automobiles.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: What portion of those county
runs constitute structure fires? Do we have that number?
MR. HOLLOWAY: I don't have that broken down.
I mean, we can break that down. I don't have that figure
with me.
JUDGE TINLEY: What portion constitute backup
calls or standby calls to automobile accidents on state or
public roadways? Out -- I assume if it's -- if it's on a
roadway and it's outside the corporate limits of the city of
Kerrville, it's classified as a county run, isn't it?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct, yes. And as
far as standby, any time -- any time we make a response to
an automobile accident or a drowning or -- well, drowning
may not -- well, if we have a rescue, our dive team out
there, that would be considered in that. None of these
calls are standby or assist EMS calls. None of these calls
constitute that. That's what we consider a First Responder
call, and those numbers are not in this. But any time we go
out -- but as far as percentage of those, I don't know. I
can just tell you right -- I don't have -- I can get that
figure for you, but I don't have it right now. All we have
is how many calls we've made into the county.
MR. PATTERSON: These numbers do represent
7-~9-03 jcc
16
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
actual services provided. As he said, standby or First
Responder calls are not included in these numbers.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, if you respond to an
automobile accident, it's not included in any of those
figures unless you actually perform a fire suppression
servir_e? An active fire suppression service?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Some type of rescue service,
you know. If we have to extricate a patient or that type of
operation, or maybe even put out a fire, even to wash down
an oil or a gas spill -- well, we don't actually wash it
down any more; we clean it up. That would be part of that.
Now, if we're just out there assisting an ambulance crew
with a patient, no, that's not in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Irrespective of you --
of where these may occur out in the county, do you happen to
have any -- any figures or tabulations of who these services
are provided to? Are they city residents? Non-city
residents? Are they residents of the county or transients,
for that matter?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, that would take a lot of
manual work to do that. I mean, we'd have to sit down and
look at each one of the reports and determine if that's a
city resident or what -- whatever. I guess it doesn't
really matter if it's a city resident or not. I mean,
they're still county residents, and they're -- and we're
~-~9-03 jcc
17
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
actually responding into the county.
MR. PATTERSON: Bottom line is that, with
regard to fire service, it's usually like P.O.S., point of
service. Wherever the service is provided is usually how
they're counted.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, 'cause we wouldn't count
the county residents in the city if they had an automobile
accident. Where they're from really is irrelevant to where
the call is happening.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, even if they're from
out of state, as you said, a transient --
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. PATTERSON: -- inside the city or outside
the city or whatever, we -- again, as I said, we just do our
counts based on point of service.
MAYOR FINE: And a lot of the things Raymond
would provide and the fire department provide are services
probably that the volunteer fire departments don't provide
or can't provide. So, you know, whether you're paying for
two services that are identical, I have to say no.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, and some of these calls
could be to assist the volunteer fire departments if they
have a structure fire and it's beyond their capability to --
to put the fire out, and they call for assistance. At the
same time, if we have a situation in the city limits and we
-39-03 jcc
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
need help, we'll call the volunteer fire departments to help
us.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Mayor, the
argument the volunteer fire departments would make, and do
make, is that they're better capable of handling brush fires
than Kerrville because they've got different and better
equipment.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I'd never argue against that.
MAYOR FINE: Right, but the only time they
call is when they need help, unless I'm mistaken, too. We
don't --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And make the
argument that, on a structure fire, that -- that the City's
truck goes out there and squirts its water, and it's not a
lot of water. There aren't any hydrants, and they`re out of
business. But -- but the volunteer fire department can go
out there and shuttle a number of trucks back and forth and
keep water on the fire.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, and to add to that, when
we go out there, we depend on the volunteers to shuttle
water to us too, put water in our tank to help us do that.
'Cause you're right, we only carry about 700 gallons of
water on that truck, and it doesn't take long for that to
dissipate. So, yeah, we depend on the volunteers for water
in the county, whether it's shuttling it back and forth,
-~a-Ci3 jcc
19
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
pumping out of the river, whatever.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah, I -- probably
evaluating the relative capabilities of the various
departments, it's not --
MAYOR FINE: Like I said, but the only time
we go is to assist.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: No doubt. Kerrville
Fire Department is -- is very capable. I'm not at all
making that argument.
MAYOR FINE: See, we use a Hurst, too, on a
lot of regular calls. Some of the volunteer fire
departments don't have that capability. I believe Ingram
might. I believe they still have that capability.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Raymond, we had
somewhat of this conversation yesterday in Commissioners
Court, and there was a comment made in our room that -- this
is a quote -- the City, when you go outside into the county,
must keep its "wheels on the pavement." And what that means
to me is that you no longer fight brush fires. Do you not
have brush fighting equipment?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I'm not sure where that
came from. We do have a brush truck.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm asking you a
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, we do have a brush truck,
question.
-25-v3 cc
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
20
and it is -- I'll use an example. The Hunt Volunteer Fire
Department has an old duece and a half. That thing -- when
I first started here, and you too, we had an old deuce and a
half, and you could go anywhere in that. Well, our truck
can't do what that deuce and a half can do. We can't go out
into the woods like that, but we do have a brush truck, and
we're capable as far as getting out into the -- the boonies,
where -- we don't have as much capability as they do, but
yeah, we do have a brush truck.
MR. PATTERSON: And they do get off the
pavement.
MR. HOLLOWAY: They do get off the pavement.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I knew you did. I
wanted to ask one more question. Your -- your chart here
only goes back to FY '03, where the fire contract was
$100,000. If we went back to '02, wasn't it 75?
MR. HOLLOWAY: It was 75, right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 75, and then '03, we
went to 100. And --
MR. PATTERSON: Is this -- to clarify, you're
talking about this next one?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got seven or
eight here in front. of me that I'm working off of.
MR. PATTERSON: All right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think they all say
-29-03 ~cc
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
21
the same thing, though. Yes, that one there.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: From -- from '02 to
'03 is $25,000 increase, and six runs -- county runs. And
then from --
MR. HOLLOWAY: I'm not sure that's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm just working off
y'all's numbers; that's all I have to work with.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I'm not looking at that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, mine says six
runs. And then from '03 to '04, if. we go another $25,000,
that is five runs from '03 to '04.
MAYOR FINE: You mean additional runs?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MAYOR FINE: I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Some of you math guys
can -- you know, how much is that a run increase? That's a
pretty good increase.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, it is, and I can
explain that one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't -- it probably
doesn't matter to me if you explain it or not.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Well, I think it does
need some explanation. It's a good question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, good.
7-'' S-03 ~ cc
22
1
.-. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: The bottom line is that when
you look at fire service, whether -- and you look at the
point of service, one of the billing issues with regard to
fire service, whether it's provided by a city, a county, or
volunteer fire department, there is a fixed cost for
availability of service. And the availability of service is
a cost that's there whether you make one run or you make 100
runs. And, in this particular case, what we're looking at
is the fact that, if you look at this chart, you're right,
there's not a huge number of runs; however, our costs are
going up because we've got additional firefighters, new
equipment, all kinds of things that are still rolled into
those numbers. One of the things that we started to take a
look at was, if you take a look back at history and what the
percentage of runs were with regard to being -- in other
words, what's provided by this particular department, you'll
see that -- you know, and, again, I've only gone back to
'02, but you can go back to the other chart there and look
and see that you're looking at 10 percent, 12 percent, 15,
18, 20 percent. And what you can see is, when you look at
20 percent of runs, and $100,000 is, you know, 4 percent of
the budget, you do have to ask yourself the question of,
well, 20 percent of the total runs being provided by the
department and are outside of the corporate limits, but
4 percent of the budget is being provided. And so from that
7-~9-03 jcc
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
23
perspective, we did look at it. We took a look at, you
know, in terms of what do we feel would be reasonable with
regard to participation in those programs with regard to
having that service available. And you are absolutely
right, sir, there's not a huge swing in the numbers. It's a
matter of we have ongoing costs and increase in costs that
are going every year.
MAYOR FINE: Buster, if you want to specify,
pick out specific years, you can go from '94 to '95, and it
went up by 41 runs. '95 to '96, it went up 32 runs. There
was no increase in costs, so that was a pretty substantial
savings per run on those years.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
MAYOR FINE: So, I mean, like I said, you
have to look at the overall trend, not just between one year
to the next. It's -- the trend line, I think, tells the
story more than anything does.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then another
question would be -- and this may have been already asked; I
missed it. Do you have an idea of how many runs are
going -- that you've had into Kerrville South proper?
Not -- I'm not talking about Harper Road and all that. I'm
talking about where I live.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, the contract states
Kerrville South Volunteer Fire Department area, and that's
-29-03 jcc
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
24
that big area which includes everything north.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And the problem with that
is -- is when you get a call, you'd have to look at the
address and then keep track of that, and our program right
now, it's set up just to show city calls, county calls, and
brings it down. In order to do that, we'd have to -- every
time we had a county call, we'd have to check and see if
it's in the Kerrville South area or if it's in the other
part of the county. We haven't been doing that, and -- and
it's something that I think we're probably going to start
doing in the future, to keep track of those calls into that
Kerrville South area, because it's pretty time-consuming
when you have 6,000 calls -- run sheets you have to go
through trying to figure out which goes where. I mean, so,
it's a pretty big job.
MR. PATTERSON: I would like to echo
something the Chief just said, too. Right now, our system
is somewhat dated with regard to how we manage -- how we
manage our data with regard to how we know where all the
runs are. However, if we're successful this next year with
regard to our dispatch system that we're looking at -- this
particular map was generated off of our new GIS system.
What we would hope to be able to do in the not-too-distant
future is, with the new dispatch system, gather the
-~9-03 -cc
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
25
addressing -- you know, specific addresses, even, not just
general areas; be able to gather that data and then plot
that in a map and map it for you, so we'll be able to show
you where the calls are. We want to be able to do that for
not only police, but fire and EMS, so we can also do better
management with regard to location of facilities. So, the
bottom line is -- is, hopefully here in the very near
future -- it's probably 18 months out -- 12 to 18 months
out, if all the funding occurs, we hopefully will be able to
map that for you, and literally -- hopefully maybe even next
year -- that's kind of ambitious, but literally show you,
boom, "Here's where the calls are." And hopefully we'll be
able to get there shortly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Raymond, one more. Do
you know the response time to Nimitz School?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, not right offhand, but
I'm kind of guessing at about four minutes maybe from
central station.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I was thinking seven.
Central being at the V.A.?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No, Water Street.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Four minutes is
pretty fast.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I think we can probably make
it in about four, maybe five minutes. But without driving
7-~9-03 j~c
26
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it, you know, that's just off the top of my head. The other
station that would respond to that would be the one out by
Legion Drive.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. You
answered my questions. Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Patterson, I'm a little
confused about the numbers. You specified general
contracts, 65; Kerrville South, 35.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that our general contract
is, therefore, at 65. The -- the documentation that I've
seen -- and maybe I haven't seen all the documentation that
I need to see -- provides that a number of years ago, I
believe it was probably in Fiscal '95/'96, Kerrville South
was added for a consideration of $25,000.
MR. PATTERSON: Go ahead, Chief.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct. And two years
ago, when we got the additional increase, part of that
increase was for the Kerrville South area, from 25 to 35.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was it specifically broken out
in the agreement that way?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I can't remember if it
was or riot .
MR. PATTERSON: Going back and looking at the
amendment, you're absolutely right. It was not broken out;

27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it's a lump sum.
JUDGE TINLEY: I was thinking it was. I
don't --
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, that's correct.
It's in Paragraph 2 of that amendment to the firefighter --
firefighting agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The proposed increase
this year would be to the general contract or the Kerrville
South?
MR. PATTERSON: Well, if you want to go --
one of the things we probably need to do is address the
issue that the Judge brought up, and that is right now, the
way that this agreement's written, it's in a lump sum amount
that's not broken out between the two. So, we will either
need to -- if this is done, we'll either need to continue on
with the lump sum and stop breaking it out the way we have,
or we need -- whenever this is rewritten for this next year,
we need to make sure we break it out properly. But, either
way, it -- it either needs to be addressed one way or the
other.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have two, I think,
brief questions.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Raymond, on the calls or
the runs that are made out into the county, most of those,
-29-G3 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
1 '7
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
did the volunteer fire departments also respond? Or was
your department there alone?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, if it's in the Kerrville
South area, we're alone. If it's in the rest of the area,
we're generally assisting the volunteer fire departments.
COMMISSIONER LETZ; So, they're -- both
departments are going on out?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right. And, fact is, the way
the original contract was set up, we would not respond into
the green area unless a volunteer fire department requested
our assistance or we didn't hear a response from the
volunteer fire department in about a four-minute response
time. So, for example, if Center Point was toned out and we
didn't hear them respond within four minutes, then we would
go ahead and respond to that area. In the Kerrville South
area, we'd respond as a First Responder. We'd -- you know,
we get the call, we respond with one fire truck into that
area and we get out there. If we need assistance in those
areas, then we do request volunteer fire departments. In
fact, I know there's been a lot of times that we've
requested Turtle Creek and Ingram and Center Point,
depending on where the fire is and how it -- you know,
whether it's a -- how big the fire is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And my other question,
the pink area, when was the last time that was reviewed as
i-?9-03 j~c
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
29
to -- I guess, one, how did that area come into being? And
do we need to modify it?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question, based on
development.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Based on my memory, it was one
of the Commissioners -- whatever precinct that is there --
there, borderline --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's 3. It's part of
precinct -- well, it's actually part of all four precincts,
I believe.
MR. PATTERSON: I was going to say, that
changed since then.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Kerrville South Volunteer Fire
Department was in operation back then. That was basically
the area that they covered.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I guess my basic
question is, has that area been updated with the amount of
development going on in that area to make sure that there
is -- you know, that everyone knows who the first fire
department or First Responder is on certain calls in certain
subdivisions? And if you go back to the other map, you can
see it appears that that purple area was drawn because of
the way road access is to some of those areas.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And I think that --

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That may be pretty far
out. The way you get there is, you have to do it through
Kerrville.
MR. HOLLOWAY: You're right. As far as
looking at it, no, it hasn't been reviewed. In fact, I
don't guess it's ever been reviewed.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's just -- to
make sure that the coverage is proper, it probably ought to
be done when we do the contracts.
MR. PATTERSON: Let me clarify one thing,
too. With regard to the purple area coverage, we are the
primary responder, correct?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. I just wanted to be
sure.
MR. HOLLOWAY: The only area that might --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. HOLLOWAY: -- really might be changed
would be toward Ingram, I think. I don't think that Center
Point or Kerrville South -- I mean Turtle Creek or -- well,
there's nobody north. I don't think they've -- they've
taken on any more area. I think --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm looking at -- I see a
little -- over on the far eastern side, kind of -- there's
that green little area that sticks out down there. You have
~-~9-03 jcc
31
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. HOLLOWAY: This right here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Go up.
MR. HOLLOWAY: This is out toward The Woods.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But more up towards -- in
between Highway 27 --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Oh, here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Further up.
THE WITNESS: Up in this area?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Little spot you can't --
you can't get to it unless you go through the purple area.
And it's -- I think we need to look at some of these to make
sure that -- I don't know how Center Point or Comfort could
get there without going through Kerrville or through the
Kerrville primary area.
MR. PATTERSON: Quite frankly, one of the
things we may want to look at is doing like you're talking
about, I think the idea of the response zones. Simply say,
okay, here's the city. Here's the response zone that
surrounds the city, sort of like ETJ, and then outside of
that, you know --
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm just saying -- where I'm
going is simply the fact that what you're doing is -- is
that way, the further out you get, then you've got, you
know, your primary responder in the city, primary responder

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
32
outside the city to a certain area. And then the volunteer
fire departments, being the primary responder with us, as
follow-on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: But it's a good point.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a quick
question for the chief. Chief, in a recent Center Point
fire at the Townsend house, did the Kerrville Fire
Department respond as the secondary, or did Center Point not
call you or what?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, they -- it took a while
before we got the call on that. I -- we responded, but it
was after a while.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gone by the time you
got there?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
MAYOR FINE: The way it's been explained to
me since I've been around is, lots of times volunteer fire
departments go out. If they see they can't handle it at
that time -- that's not the right term. If it seizes more
than their assets will cover, they'll call. It`s not always
at the exact moment. Lots of times they don't know till
they get there exactly what-all's going to be needed.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Speaking as a firefighter,
there's certain things you feel like you can do when you
7-~9-03 jcc
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
33
roll up on a fire, and you -- and you try to attack the fire
and do what you can with what you've got, and before you
know it, it -- it's away from you. It gets away from you.
So, what. happens is, you're -- now you're in the heat of the
battle, and the last thing you're going to think of is, "I
better call somebody to help me." Now, if there's somebody
over there that -- that's -- you know, thinks, "Well we
better get some help; we can't handle it ourselves," then
they'll call us. Sometimes that delays our response getting
there. And, of course, you know, it takes a while for us to
get out to some of those places. And then, like I said, you
know, we -- we only have a certain amount of water we carry
on those trucks. And, to give you an example, we carry
700 gallons of water, and those trucks are capable of
pumping 1,500 gallons of water in a minute. So the driver's
got to be real careful how he does that.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Did you say 30
seconds?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, about that.
MR. PATTERSON: Other questions? Moving out
of the fire suppression into the emergency management,
you'll note there on your spreadsheet that there`s a total
of $1,000 difference being projected for this next year.
The rationale for that and the reason for that particular
7-29-03 jcc
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
34
request was that during the initial stand-up of the
emergency operations center during this last -- last July
when we had the flood, the bottom line is -- is that we --
we recognized very quickly that there was some issues with
regard to having some standing availability within the
facility itself. What that means is, we need to be able to
literally go in, flick a switch, turn on all of our phones,
everything's up and running. We basically can do that now,
with the exception of some minor modifications that need to
occur. Some of that has to do with data versus voice, being
able to get information over our data system so that we can
sit there and log on, get into our -- all of our systems
with regard to weather, with regard to emergency calls
systems, with regard to FEMA and state reporting and those
type things.
This $2,000 doesn't sound like a whole lot,
but it will do a whole lot with regard to being able to make
some minor modifications in there so that in the future,
when we roll into that facility, we`ll be able to literally
walk in with laptops, set them down, plug them in, flip the
switches, and everything is up and running. It doesn't
take, you know, several hours. Again, it's minor
modifications, but it's something that I think would make a
difference. I will tell you right now, I'll be the first
one to admit that, you know, could we do it again the way we
7-^9-03 jcc
1
.-, 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
35
just did it? Yes. Is it as efficient and is it as
expedient in getting services provided? No. But, again, I
-- I think that, under the circumstances, everybody --
everybody who showed up there did an excellent job. But I
do believe that these minor improvements would significantly
enhance the operation of that center.
And I can specifically walk through each of
those items, if you'd like me to. I mean, basically, they
have to do with data connections, the ability to walk in --
we have laptops that are assigned. People can walk in, plug
them in. What we want to be able to do is have that data
network modified so that when you plug them in, you're
automatically profiled and you're set up, ready to go. We
have some phone in -- phone instruments that, right now,
what we're doing is we grab them out of one place and move
them somewhere else. We'd like to have some things that are
permanently assigned in there with phone instruments and
those kinds of things.
It was interesting this last -- this last
July. The first phone call I remember getting into the
center, it wasn't FEMA; it wasn't anybody except the press,
Channel 4, Channel 5, everybody calling, you know, with all
the P.R. stuff. Luckily, we had somebody who was on top of
that and able to handle it, and we basically did it through
25 ~ cell phones, but they were pretty unreliable during that

36
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
time. So, anyway, those -- those are some of the things
that we have to deal with. And, again, just a chance for a
little bit quicker response.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, in the -- I guess
what you're -- the emergency center that you`re talking
about --
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- has there been
consideration on the -- the equipment, and all that's being
used so that the County equipment also works in there, and
to the same level? Because I know this past year was, in
recent times, the first time the city of Kerrville was hit
hard with a disaster, but in the last four years in my
precinct, we've had two disaster declarations.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I just want to make
-- you know, mainly, I guess probably the Sheriff's
Department, 'cause I don't know that we -- and the County
Judge and his office being able to be integrated, their
computers and systems into whatever you all are doing.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just something I think we
need to make sure is done.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. As a matter of
fact, one of the things we want to take a look at, if we
r-z9-o3 ~~~
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
37
have -- and this is something we would need to discuss with
the Sheriff, in particular, 'cause he's going to be -- the
first ones that are going to show up are going to be Fire
Chief, Police Chief, EMS, and the Sheriff. Those are going
to be the first people in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ:
MR. PATTERSON: And
going to be -- and, quite frankly
and the judge, but, quite frankly,
connection is not as critical as i
members.
Right.
then the follow-on is
-- no offense to the mayor
not having that instant
t is for these other
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
MR. PATTERSON: And those we can work
through. I do believe that if it would be necessary for us
to sit down with the Sheriff and talk about -- you know, if
they're on Windows NT-based laptops, they've got something
that they can walk in with, we can make it work. Our I.T.
is willing to do that, and we can make that work. It's a
matter of we've got to get it coordinated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. That is, you
know, an important point.
MR. PATTERSON: Absolutely, yes, sir. I'm
writing notes over here, so sorry.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Rusty -- or the Sheriff has
always been -- every time we've opened it up, either the
7-~9-03 jcc
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
38
Sheriff or one of his deputies has been in there for the
entire time, so we've had the radio communication and the
telephone communication. But, as far as computers, we
haven't really had that capability until actually this --
our last flood, we had two computers in there. That's the
first time we've had that capability, so we're slowly
getting there.
MR. DICKERSON: But we -- just this past
year, we've connected to the County's computer system
through the Sheriff's Office, so he would be able to -- I
guess we could patch into that room from the conference
room. We have in our conference room a -- a setup in there
to look into jail records and such, so that -- and
detectives can make photo lineups out of the jail records
and stuff like that.
MR. PATTERSON: The idea would be to create a
system that, when you walk in to E.O.C., doesn't matter what
agency you're in; you can get into and look at your files
and records.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: That's where we want to try
and get to.
MAYOR FINE: Where was E.O.C. during that
time? Was that set up at the police station or set up out
there?
i-?9-U3 jcc
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
39
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, we had an E.O.C. command
post at the fire scene, and they did most of it. We had the
-- the E.O.C. open for a short period of time, but we
realized that it was more practical to have that at the
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, the conditions in that
room at that time wouldn't have been an issue anyway, 'cause
it was up at the command center for the most part.
MR. PATTERSON: Right. And the one thing to
remember is that, in a situation like that, where you've got
a -- you know, you've got fire rescue, you've got the forest
service, you've got --
MR. HOLLOWAY: SETTRAC.
MR. PATTERSON: -- SETTRAC, you've got all
those individual agencies that are going to come together
and actually press on a particular event like that, versus
like this, where you're responding with your own assets; a
little bit different. Okay. Are there any further
questions on this particular item, on fire contract or
emergency management that we need to go over at this point
in time? Okay. Well, we will move, then, to the next item.
It's going to be under Tab 4 in your notebook. It's going
to be Emergency Medical Services, Medical Director, and
First Responder program. In this particular item, what we
are covering are emergency medical services or EMS, which is
-29-03 jcc
90
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 -- the emergency services that are provided with regard
to your ambulance services, basically, and all your first
responses with regard to the health and welfare of citizens;
heart attacks, et cetera, whatever calamity may have
befallen them, and they need medical care.
If you'll recall -- a little bit of history
here -- back in 1994, there was a program set up -- there
was a program set up whereby the City and the County were
paying $37,500 each per year for emergency services of this
type to be provided within the city and the county. And
during that process where they were paying for that service,
there was also no First Responder program. So, while we had
ambulance service, there was no First Responder program.
So, in '94, shortly thereafter, the City went into the
operation of an EMS service, and at that point in time there
was a contract entered into whereby the City would provide
services not only within the city corporate limits, but also
within the county outside of the corporate limits. That was
also set up so that, as much as possible, we have for the
most part been able to fund that not with taxpayer dollars,
but instead with fee for service, which has been a very
wonderful thing, with -- saving both agencies the 37,5 per
year.
Right now, this program is expanding with
regard to the number of runs and services, which we'll show
7-?y-u~ jcC
41
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
you in just a moment. In addition to that, the other item
that is covered in this particular area is the medical
director. I would note for you that there should be
something highlighted here on that page for you.
Originally, we had given you that document that said that we
were -- each agency was paying $11,300 for that services.
However, that has dropped to $9,040 for each agency, with
the City of Ingram at $2,000 -- was at $2,400, now at
$1,920. The medical director is a necessary part of any EMS
program. You must have an M.D. who oversees the actions of
the paramedics and the E.M.T.'s who operate within our EMS
program. This individual reviews run reports, et cetera,
and makes sure the protocols are followed. Again, this is
something that is required by the Texas Department of
Health, and is a necessary part of the EMS program.
In addition to that, in this particular item
there is also the First Responder program. This is the
program whereby we have our EMS Coordinator -- y'all all
know Kyle Young, and he coordinates this program whereby we
have First Responders out in .the county who can get on the
scene first, provide that first response and that immediate
medical care when needed, and then support it with training,
as well as -- with regard -- when I say "training," ongoing
training as they need that, follow-up training with E.M.T.'s
and paramedics. In addition to that, this last year, the

42
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
funding was requested whereby Kyle could go and get
certified where he can provide that training on-site. He
has recently completed that training and will now be able to
go through that process and finish that up this fiscal year.
Originally, in your packet, we had in here
under the First Responders a request to carry over that
$6,000. We have now removed that request, which has reduced
the request for the given year for this new program. Into
the new programs, one of the things you'll see here is I
have a breakdown on the EMS and medical director. On the
EMS -- on the medical director; I'll do that one first,
since it's listed first. As I said, that cost has gone down
from $25,000 to $20,000, therefore reducing that down to the
$9,040. On the EMS facilities, one of the issues that --
that we have right now, and I would invite anyone to go to
central fire station and walk around back. There is a
little shed that you buy, like, from Home Depot or something
that's sitting back there, and that little shed is Kyle's
office. That's where he works out of, and he's got records
that are stacked this high. The bottom line is, the
facility is inadequate to provide proper management of this
particular program.
In addition to that, the other issue that we
have is -- is that the boxes, as we call them, the
ambulances, at this point in time we have a number of

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
them -- because of the number we need to provide the service
level, we have a number of them that are sitting outside and
being stored outside. That's not a good thing for a
$110,000 investment, plus another $40,000 to $50,000
investment in equipment on board that, which includes drugs,
you know, your cardiac units, et cetera. The recommendation
that's being made here -- and, again, this is both for the
City and County to consider -- is to take a look at and
consider going into a sublease at the 9-1-1 building.
There's been some discussion with them. It's been off-line
discussion, nothing real formal yet, except that the
director and I have had some conversations about what might
be available. I don't know if you've ever been in that
building, but in the front part of the building, 9-1-1 has
some office space. They have an area that you can walk into
for a reception area, but in the back of the building,
there's two large bays. Behind those bays is a large
air-conditioned storage area where equipment can be stored.
There's also office space for the EMS -- what I would
recommend is the EMS Coordinator, that would be Kyle, to
move into that location.
In addition to that, currently right now our
EMS billing coordinator is in City Hall. So, we have our --
our overall program coordinator down behind central. We
have our billing person here at City Hall. Then we've got
7-29-03 jcc
44
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
our ambulances scattered out. Just doesn't make for good
management of a good program. So, the recommendation I
would request for y'all to consider would be to take a look
at possibly entering into a lease with 9-1-1 district to
sublease a piece of the building there. What this will
allow us to do is get all of that operation consolidated.
It will also allow us to properly store very expensive
equipment that serves our citizens. Right now, the -- what
has been discussed with them is there's about 1,966 square
feet of space that would be leased at this point in time.
That includes -- in the lease amount, that 1,966 does not
include the common areas, doesn't include the restrooms, the
little foyer area, the reception area, break room, that kind
of stuff. The 1,966 is net of all of that.
MR. BROWN: Does it include the bays for the
trucks?
MR. PP_TTERSON: Yes sir, it would include the
bays for the ambulances, as well as the storage area and the
office space. Right now, we have been discussing a rate of
$11,604 per year for that particular lease. That is not,
you know, set in stone at this point in time, but something
that has been discussed. In order to make the move and move
into the space -- obviously, when you have leased space, you
have to finish it out. We've estimated a cost of about
$9,000 to go in and finish out that space. That includes
7-~9-G3 jcc
45
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
everything from painting to putting in appropriate phone
lines, data lines, et cetera. Most of the lines are already
there. It's a matter of taking and migrating them off of
their system onto our system so we can keep them separate.
One of the things that they have to worry about is security
of their data. What we have to worry about is security of
all of our equipment and drugs, et cetera, that kind of
stuff. We don't feel that that would be a problem. We do
feel that the two agencies match up very well with each
other, and would make a -- a viable option.
With that said, what you see here is an
amount of $10,302. That would be the total lease amount, as
well as the startup costs you see over to the right here.
We have the lease of 1,966, lease being $11,604, the
one-time startup costs being $9,000, for a total of $20,604
or $10,302. That's how those numbers were arrived at.
Beyond the startup costs, after that it would be an ongoing
cost of about $12,000 a year -- as you can see, the $11,600;
that would be the continuation of the lease. Again, I feel
that this -- this is something that we -- we need to do to
be able to, again, better manage this program.
The medical director, I've already gone over
that. Again, you can see the breakdown here on the EMS
services. I will say that this would be -- this is a
change. This would be the first time that we have provided
?-^9-03 jcc
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
funding into the EMS program outside of what the fees are
generating. I can tell you that it runs on a very narrow
margin with regard to our costs versus the revenues. One
thing that you might find very interesting, obviously, with
our population makeup, we have a tremendous number that are
on Medicare, and Medicare is only going to pay you what
Medicare is going to pay you. Doesn't matter what that run
costs you. So -- and we have a tremendous amount of
write-off with regard to the provision of those services.
Other than that, I will be quiet for a moment and answer any
questions that we might have, and then I'll go into the
First Responder in a little bit more detail.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I had a quick
question. What are we charging now per mile for ambulance
service? $2 and something?
MR. YOUNG: The new rate schedule, I believe,
is 58.35 a loaded mile; that's when we're actually carrying
the patient.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: $8?
MR. YOUNG: And that's actually lower than a
lot of agencies are charging now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: You may recall that this last
year, we did increase our rates by 10 percent. In addition
to the rate increase, we also realigned our rates, so we
.-~9 03 jcc
47
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
took certain things and matched them up with what Medicare
is paying so that we could see more revenue from Medicare
based on that, you know. But, again, I will just tell you,
the write-offs are a big, big number. It's about -- do you
remember what the number is off the top of your head?
MR. YOUNG: $350,000.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.
MAYOR FINE: What is the person charged if
you go out there and treat them, but don't bring them back
in?
MR.
car wreck, we have
assist or anything
fee, and that's $7
MR.
MR.
YOUNG: Usually, if we just go out to a
no charge, but if we go out and do a lift
like that, we've initiated a response
5 or $50.
BROOKS: $55.
YOUNG: $55.
MAYOR FINE: Anywhere in the county, it would
just be $55?
MR. YOUNG: Right, unless we got more
involved. If we do a lot of diagnostic stuff, then we will
-- we can charge an aid-only fee, which is $75.
MAYOR FINE: What about if you transport?
MR. YOUNG: If we transport them, we charge
the cost -- the basic fee plus the mileage fee.
MAYOR FINE: But that's a car wreck and just
7-~9-G3 jcc
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
48
minor injuries, no one pays?
MR. YOUNG: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct.
MAYOR FINE: Do those happen often?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, quite regularly. Very
often.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, just so I understand
the numbers --
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the City part, EMS
Services, $1,790,000?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that a -- that's the
fees generated? Where does that money come from? Is that
from the City? I mean, --
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, the bottom line is the
$1.7 million is our expense item for what it costs to
operate the EMS program overall, okay? What -- how those
fees -- I mean, how those -- how these expenses are paid for
is out of the fees that are generated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there revenue in
excess of expense?
MR. PATTERSON: No, sir. No.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, basically, you're
~-29-G3 ;cc
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
saying there's revenue -- the revenue matches that expense?
MR. PATTERSON: It matches or is less than.
As a matter of fact, the reason that -- as a matter of fact,
what we're doing right now is, the reason that we did the
rate increase last year was to try and play catch-up so that
we're not less than. We actually ran -- we didn't end the
year in the red, but we were very close to it, had we not
done the rate increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, in
future reviews, I think it would be helpful to see the
revenue side and the -- you know, in that column.
MR. PATTERSON: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So you can see what
the -- how the program is running county-wide.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Yeah, that -- that is
-- that data is in the notebook, but I'll be glad to put it
in the Power Point, too. Can you -- have you got that? As
a matter of fact, I've got it right here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My other question is --
I'm not sure this is the right time. When do we talk about
dispatch? Is now the right time? And Kyle's aware; I think
Chuck may be, too. It seems to me, in the responses to the
eastern part of the county, which, to me, should be -- there
are too many problems. Kyle and I have talked about it, you
know. But, I mean, I think that I want to bring it up to
~-2G-o3 ~r~
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
50
the standpoint that I get hammered on a very regular basis
about .these slow response times from EMS into, you know, the
eastern quarter of the county, which is all my precinct.
And, there -- there are lots of times and there's been some
mistakes, there have been some exaggerations, to me. Not to
really cover all the details, but, you know, I think
something needs to be done to improve that if possible.
And, long-term, is there a possibility of putting an EMS
unit in the Center Point area? Which would help the
eastern -- the response time. That would come back into the
eastern part of Kerrville also, but it would be a much more
central location, 'cause there is nothing over there right
now. The other option -- and I'm -- and Kyle's aware I'm
trying to talk with Kendall County, get some sort of
interlocal agreement, but I can't even get a meeting
scheduled.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. With regard to Kendall
County, there was a point in time that we actually had an
agreement where they would make those runs up to a certain
point; you know, they would come in so far. And I don't
know if you're aware, they have made the decision they're
not crossing the line any more.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, they are willing, I
believe, now to enter a new agreement where they will
respond, but they don't want to transport. Which, I mean, I
-29-U3 jcc
51
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
don't understand that. But it seems to me that if you get
this -- that's -- the one that doesn't transport is the one
that makes the money. Anyway, we're working on this side of
it, and Kyle's aware, trying to set up a meeting. We'll try
to set up another one with their coordinator to try to
handle this problem. But it's just something I just want to
get to the table, that there is a problem on response times
in the eastern part of the county that we need to figure out
a way to solve.
MR. PATTERSON: Do you have -- I mean, if you
got some specifics, that would help me too, as far as
helping to address those. We can talk about those off-line.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Kyle -- I mean,
usually when I get them, I call Kyle; he looks into them and
gets back to me. And it's the response times; that's the
only issue. I hear nothing but praise about the service
when they get there.
MR. PATTERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not on the technical
side. It's the time to get there.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And hopefully the 911
system, when it's finalized, would assist a lot and make it
easier to deal with those areas, to find the locations.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.
~-29-03 jcc
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's part of the
problem.
MR. PATTERSON: I will say thank y'all for
what you're doing on the 911 system, because I'm telling
you, that's going to make a big difference. I think, with
regard to -- with the new management and what they're
looking at and the progress that they're making, you know,
with y'ap's help as well, I think that is -- like you said,
that's going to make a huge difference with regard to
responses everywhere. Not just in that area, but
everywhere.
MAYOR FINE: Is the First Responder program
strong in that area?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes, comes out of the
Comfort Fire Department. They're a very strong fire
department, and they get there, you know, instantly almost.
Just a matter -- it's getting the --
MAYOR FINE: Getting the box there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Getting the box there.
And they're sending -- you know, I think they're right
across the county line, the one out of Kendall County, but
they're just sitting there.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, we know of a situation
where Kendall actually responded, showed up on the scene,
and just stood there.
7 ~9-03 ~cc
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MR. PATTERSON: Wouldn't provide any service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause they figured it
you know --
MR. PATTERSON: Where do they come from?
MR. YOUNG: First Responders use the actual
equipment off their ambulances to stabilize a patient.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, anyway, it's a
difficult situation. Part of it's -- you know, but if we
work something out with Kendall County, that certainly
helps, but if we can't, it's Kerr County's responsibility.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- you know,
we need to figure out how to make it work better.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Commissioner, are you
going to save your -- the other part of your question for
happy hour? Or -- dispatchers?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I -- I think I
addressed it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You've already done
that?
COMMISSTONER LETZ: I just went over it
quickly. I mean, I didn't --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's not how he
i-29-03 jcc
54
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
handles me with that issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think part of the
problem has been in the dispatch of the EMS, and I think --
you know, and -- you know, I just think they need to -- and
I get this from peop]_e that call in. They get referred to
-- "Oh, you have a 995 number; you need to call Kendall
County." Or, "Oh, you need to..." you know, "We don't know
where that is," or, you know, it seems like a lack of
familiarity with the eastern part of the county in the
dispatch. And I think Kyle's told me that there's been some
turnover, things of that nature. But, to me, it's not a
good answer.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. Well, there was a lot
of turnover for a period of time. And I'll also tell you,
you're right, it's not a good answer. However, what we have
done here recently is, we have made some changes within the
department itself. The dispatch function used to be
supervised by a police officer or sergeant or -- it varied
at different times. At this point in time, that has been
changed where we now have a civilian supervisor over
dispatch. Okay. So now that particular individual then
meets with both fire, EMS, and the Police Chief in order to
make sure that we get the dispatch services straightened
out. Is it where we want it yet? No. I'll be the first
one to say it, but we have made that change and we brought
~-~9-C3 cc
55
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 person on during this fiscal year, and we're still
making -- going through some changes with regard to that.
The other thing that we're also doing is, we're also looking
at making some changes with regard to the salary schedule
within that area so that we can obtain and retain quality
people. That was an issue.
The third item I will say to you is that part
of the issue is the technology that we're using. I relate
the technology we have today to about a Tandy 1000 computer,
if you remember those things, the big floppy disks. But if
we can make this grant come together that we're working on
right now, it's actually a three-pronq grant that we're
working on. If all of that comes together in this next
fiscal year, what we hope to be able to do is actually
replace all of that equipment. We will go from hundreds of
keystrokes to touch screens, so that we can quickly respond.
We also want to be able to tie data in and capture data on
particular calls. You know, if someone has a repeat call,
you know, do they have a heart problem? That kind of stuff.
And even tie it into, as I was describing earlier, being
able to better plan with regard to our jails and know where
those calls are, so we can say, "Well, there's a
concentration here, and our average response time is X."
Same thing in a different area. The tools are not there
yet, but we're moving in that direction. So -- but, again

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
it's something we do need to address.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean,
long-term, I really think getting an ambulance further out
in the eastern part of the county. And I presume most
people here know there's a retirement community out in the
far eastern edge of the county in my precinct, Hermann Sons.
There's about 40 people, or 40 -- you know, and there's
probably -- you know, I wouldn't be surprised if half the
calls that go to the far eastern part of the county go out
there, and it's -- you can't get there in 25 minutes,
hardly. I mean, it's just a long ways.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, it is. Yeah. As a
matter of fact, we took a look -- I ran some rough numbers
with regard to putting a remote facility somewhere. And,
you know, obviously, you've got -- if you're going to do a
24/7 coverage, you got six people, six -- six FTE's that you
have to consider, at least one box, and probably two, you
know, with regard to a backup and rotation. Maybe not; I
don't know if we have to look at that. And, again, that's
110 to 150, depending on, you know, the equipment, that kind
of stuff, and then housing for that particular facility.
So, is it something that can be done? I'm just throwing out
that, you know, there's some fairly large numbers tied to
it, but it's something that can be looked at. Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Patterson, you indicated

57
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that the -- the operation of the EMS is at a deficit now.
Specifically referring to your $1,790,000 up there, I -- I
don't find that particular figure in the information which
you furnished to us, but maybe my familiarity with
government accounting is not what it needs to be. But what
I am seeing is that you show on the information furnished
that you got total revenues of $1,773,000 and change, and
projected expenditures for '02-'03 of $1,710,000 and change,
almost $1,711,000. That appears to be --
MR. PATTERSON: Well, first of all, it's not
running at a deficit right now. Last year we were running
red, and we made our adjustments. We barely -- we got into
the even. You'll see that what we're projecting for this
current year, for '04, we got a $68,000 fund balance total
out of a $1.8 million budget. We typically try and have a
5 percent fund balance at any given time with regard to --
in all of our funds. Not to say we always achieve it, but
we always try and have at least 5 percent there. I don't
remember, is that 68 -- does that hit our 5 percent?
Doesn't, does it?
MS. SEKULA: No, sir. $81,000 is 5 percent.
MR. PATTERSON: $81,000 would be the
5 percent. With regard to the number here -- that you see
here, the $1,829,416, that includes -- let me make sure I
got that right. Got a million -- we've got the medical
7-~9-03 jcc
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
58
director rolled into that. Then we got $1,790,000. We got
to transfer out -- what?
MR. BROOKS: Well, the $1,825,000, one thing
that's not on there is the -- the First Responder, which is
$13,000. That's what gets us to the -- yeah, the total.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, I understand. This
gets a little bit confusing when you look at the -- the
total EMS medical director and First Responder. You have to
take and add them all together to come up with the number.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let me see if I can
further confuse the issue, then.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Here, again, it may be some
misunderstanding of accounting that -- that I have, or just
inability to understand. The expenditure column for this
year through the first nine months are $1,115,000. If you
annualize that for the remainder, you're going to come up
with about 1,487,000, rather than 1,711,000 approximately.
MR. PATTERSON: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, doesn't that give you some
more -- I mean, things are looking a whole lot brighter,
aren't they?
MR. PATTERSON: What we're trying to do here
is -- is that -- you can't just do a straight-line
extrapolation on this, first of all, simply because it is
~-2a-o~ ~~-=
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
59
somewhat -- believe it or not, this sounds cruel as all
get-out, but summer, we usually have more injuries, you
know, that kind of stuff. The other thing we also have is,
we also have higher numbers of elderly who are getting
services that they're not paying for. I know it sounds
crazy, but when you look at it across time, the bottom line
is -- is that we feel confident that we're probably going to
be more at the 1.71 than we would at 1.7 -- I think you said
there was 1.78? Sorry, I may have misunderstood.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it's 1,487,000. It's --
if you annualize the $1,115,000, the figure I come up with
-- you may come up with something different, but I come up
with annualizing that to the $1,487,000 figure.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. The -- one thing on
the expenditure side that has not happened yet for this
fiscal year is purchase of a $130,000 ambulance.
JUDGE TINLEY: Things still look a little
brighter, don't they?
MR. PATTERSON: Not to me, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they look a whole lot
brighter than $1,790,000. The -- the figure of $184,680
there at the bottom of the page, what does that figure
represent?
MR. PATTERSON: Those transfers out are for
25 ~ the purchase of equipment, correct?
i-~9-U3 jcc
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
MS. SEKULA: Purchase of equipment, and also
the reimbursement of the General Fund for two dispatchers
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. It's for replacement
equipment. We have a replacement fund.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: In other words, we set aside
a certain amount of money to replace equipment. That's what
part of that is for. We also pay two of the dispatchers out
of -- I think we have $10,000 -- yeah. Two of the
dispatchers, part of theirs is reimbursed out of that, and
then also the EMS billing coordinator.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, that would include the --
the new equipment that you just mentioned, a hundred and
whatever thousand dollars it was.
MR. PATTERSON: 130.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, that's taken into
account?
account, right.
MR. PATTERSON: That's already taken into
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. PATTERSON: Do what?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That doesn't include the
24 ambulance.
25
MR. PATTERSON: Right.

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
,-~
25
61
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, that -- that's true.
The biggest problem -- the biggest issue you have here, as
he said, is your bad debt expenses. You can go ahead and
speak up so I don't have to keep repeating. But your bad
debt expenses don't get capitalized till the end of the
year, and that's always a bite as well.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, that probably
is -- is related to the -- to the government accounting
procedure that --
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, our GAP procedures.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a hard enough time
following the regular accounting procedure, and this makes
it that much tougher.
MR. PATTERSON: I understand. If you can do
straight amortization and depreciation, and also, you know,
setting aside all your bad debt up front, that would be
nice, but GAP won't allow you to do that. Hope I'm
answering the question and not muddying it. Any other
questions on that? I will go to the First Responder. On
the First Responder program, again, we -- we had originally
thought that there was a need for an additional $6,000 for
the training program, which, again, we know is going to be
set up and be able to do that in FY '03. That necessitated
us reducing the total amount on the First Responder program.
~-~9-03 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
62
What you'll see here in that is -- let's see if I can get
over there real quick. The First Responder, we have a
portion of the salary for the EMS Coordinator is paid for to
handle the response -- First Responder program. That is a
quarter of the salary and the benefits there at $10,831.
Then you also have equipment. Again, there used to be
another line item in there for another $6,000 that's been
8
9
10
11
12
..-, 13
14
15
16
17
removed, but the equipment at $2,500 for replacement for
First Responders, and then that brings you to a subtotal of
$13,331 on that particular program. The remainder of the
salary that is picked up for the -- for the rest of it --
not the quarter, but the other three-quarters, is rolled
into and is included in the EMS budget that you were just
looking at, so that -- that's rolled into those numbers.
That's a pretty straightforward one. There's -- other than
the equipment and the coordinator salary participation,
there's no request for anything else in this particular
18 fiscal year.
19
20 please.
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question,
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kyle?
MR. YOUNG: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm assuming that you
wrote this paragraph here, or two paragraphs here, so I'm
-~9-03 jcc
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
63
going to address you. And I want you to understand up
front, I'm not throwing rocks at you. I just simply don't
understand some things here, and I'd appreciate it --
MR. YOUNG: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- if you'll explain
it to me. First of all, I can't find -- I can't find an
agreement anywhere tYiat we have. I understand the agreement
in my mind, but we probably need to have -- and probably do
have a document saying that the County provides one-quarter
of the salary, but I can't get my hands on it. May be
privileged information, but -- at the courthouse that Buster
doesn't get, but nevertheless, I can't find it. And then
the next sentence here disturbs me a little bit, and I'm
going to read it. "Additionally, staff has reviewed the
equipment needs of the First Responders for this year, and
recommends enhancing the county First Responder program by
initiating a training program." To my knowledge, we have
been paying for a training program for a number of years.
So, you're suddenly -- now we're initiating a training
program that, in my mind, we have been doing all these
years. And the next sentence says that these enhancements
would be in addition to the current funding. I'm even kind
of at a loss for words here. You know, even your
predecessor we paid to train our First Responders -- county
First Responders, and I understand you have a big class

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
64
coming up real soon.
MR. YOUNG: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But it appears the
language here says that we're -- now we're going to start
one.
MR. YOUNG: We've had a continuing education
program. That was to help upkeep the required hours by
T.D.H, that they get between their certification periods. I
think the wording in here was just a little confusing, like
you say, but the initial training program will be that
E.M.T. class that starts August 12th.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we're actually
funding out of the budget that we're presently in?
MR. YOUNG: Right. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then you go along
and say that this -- this enhancement requires more funding.
MR. PATTERSON: One thing, I want to take --
I'm going to take the hickey on this. Whenever we -- we
changed that language, if you look under new programs,
you'll see there's just that little blurb there. We changed
it from what it was before. That's highlighted for you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Where is --
MR. PATTERSON: Because he now has the
certification to be able to do the training. We should have
removed that language in the description as well, and we
7-~9-03 jcc
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
65
didn't. That's my failure. Whenever I was reviewing it, we
made that change.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think he's talking about
this one right here. Are you talking about the summary
sheet?
MAYOR FINE: That sheet right there.
MR. PATTERSON: On --
MR. HOWARD: One page over.
MR. PATTERSON: On this particular -- see
this sheet here, sir? It's got the title and everything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, kind of.
MR. PATTERSON: Is that what you were reading
from?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh -- oh, I was
working off of this sheet here.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Yeah. What I was
going to say is that you'll see that under new programs,
First Responders -- it's the next page.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. We went in there and
modified that. You'll see where it's highlighted, because
the program -- he's got the certification. He's going to be
able to do that in-house now, instead of bringing people in.
The program -- the new program isn't that we're doing
training here, it's that he's doing the training now. And
7-~9-03 jcc
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
66
in terms of getting certified, in-house, getting to do it
here. And, originally, we weren't sure he was going to have
the certification done, so we were asking that it be
reprogrammed for next year. The bottom line is -- is that
he's got the certification. He's going to be able to do
that in-house now. And that's where the -- that sentence
that you talked about starting the new program, it should
have been removed.
MAYOR FINE: That's where -- the $6,000
savings you were talking about earlier?
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct. That's
correct. And that's my failure to catch that in that
section.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not angry. I
just --
MR. PATTERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- needed an
explanation.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. It's -- yeah.
Well, I just didn't -- I didn't want to hang him out to dry,
'cause I was the one editing, and I didn't catch it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I think that's
about all I have on that right now. Thank you.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes?
MAYOR FINE: It's 5:30, suppertime.
~-~y-o3 ACC
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
67
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
MAYOR FINE: The food is ready.
MR. PATTERSON: All right.
MAYOR FINE: I was given a speech to read;
it's been modified, though. This meeting will take a recess
at this time. We will reconvene at -- take 45 minutes, to
6:15. There were no reservations for dinner. There is
plenty of food for anyone else who wishes to eat. If
we'll -- the food is ready in the room next door, so we'll
be reconvening at 6:15. If you'd like, we're going to have
a blessing at this time. If everyone would please stand, if
you wish, Dane's going to bless the food before we go into
the other room.
(Prayer.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Court will stand in recess for
45 minutes.
(Recess taken from 5:32 p.m. to 6:15 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's call back to
order the workshop meeting, joint City/County workshop
meeting with the City of Kerrville. It's 6:15. I'm back in
business, gentlemen.
(Discussion off the record.)
MAYOR FINE: All right, we're all here.
Let's go ahead and reconvene the meeting, then. It's 6:15.
~-zy-ors ~~~
68
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
Do you need to --
JUDGE TINLEY: We're already there.
MAYOR FINE: You're already there, okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Just F.Y.I., the
Judge and I had an opportunity to talk, and I think we've
got an understanding of where the numbers came from. So, I
apologize for my lack of -- inability to explain that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I appreciate it.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: A lot of things I
can't explain.
MR. PATTERSON: Thank you for taking the
time. All right. Next item is prisoner support. It is Tab
5 in your notebook, and it's the fifth item across,
obviously, on your spreadsheet. In this particular item,
this is an item where the County manages this program.
They -- they own and operate the County Jail. And under
that, what we do with our agreement is that we take all of
our prisoners for arrest, whether they be misdemeanors or --
the range, just whatever they're arrested for, we take them
over there and they house them for us. Right now, we have a
-- a process set up that what we do is we pay a rate of $37
per day, per prisoner for that service. Excuse me. Right
now, the City is anticipating that we'll have a prisoner
volume up from 936 in FY '03 up to -- excuse me, that should

69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be up to 936 from FY '03 -- I'm going to get this out. I
can't talk tonight; I apologize -- 972 up from 936, I
apologize, from the previous fiscal year estimate, which
would basically yield a $36,000 expense for that. The
County's proposed budget is at $1.8 million for the
operation of the facility. Again, that is an estimate
number. Now, I should have stated this to begin with. All
of these numbers that we've obtained from this -- either
from City staff or County or whatever, all these are, right
now, estimates and draft proposals, 'cause they're all
subject to approval by, obviously, you. Again, this is
pretty straightforward. And I'll answer any questions that
you might have about it. I -- did you have anything, Chuck?
MR. DICKERSON: Nope.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One question, Ron,
that you or maybe one of the other Commissioners can answer.
Is the $37 per day -- prisoner day, is that -- is that the
actual cost, or is this a rate we charge out-of-county
prisoners?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pretty much actual.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It's actual, and I
think it's the same as out-of-county as well. My question
is -- and it's something I never have been able to get my
mind wrapped around. When you -- when you bring a prisoner
to the County Jail and you take the handcuffs off of him and
7 ~9-03 jcc
70
1
--- 2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
turn him over to County employees, he is then County
property. Maybe that's a bad choice of words, but if -- the
cost -- then we start paying for him; is that correct, or is
that incorrect?
JUDGE TINLEY: No.
MR. DICKERSON: That's sort of correct.
Depends on --
MR. PATTERSON: It actually depends on the
point that they become magistrated.
MR. DICKERSON: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: If -- let's say somebody's
brought to the facility, and let's say they're brought there
at 1 o'clock at night, and the magistrate doesn't show up
until in the morning. Okay. At the point in time they
become magistrated, from that point forward, he is the
County's responsibility.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So there's two days
there that you pay?
MR. PATTERSON: Well, it could be 12 hours,
it could be one day, it could be two days. Depends on how
long it takes to get them magistrated.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: If you brought him in
at 11 o'clock at night, there's one day.
MR. DICKERSON: Depends what he's arrested
for. DWI, you pay for him the first minute, 'cause you're
-29-03 jcc
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
71
going to get all the fine money or whatever.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Because of the court
he goes to -- the county court he goes to?
MR. DICKERSON: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, if it's a
criminal offense as opposed to a misdemeanor.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, 'cause those will not
go through the municipal court for fines.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the 972 prisoner
days, that's made up of those that go through municipal
court and those that are waiting to be magistrated?
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct. I'm speaking
for the Chief. That's his --
MR. DTCKERSON: Yeah, prior to being
magistrated and Class C city violations.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okey-Jokey.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay? Any other questions?
Okay. The next item is going to be under Tab 6, which is
the 216th Judicial Narcotics Task Force. You may or may not
recall that this past legislative session, there was an
initiative to kill the task forces across the state. That
legislative process or initiative failed, and they do still
exist. I will tell you that the legislator who was the head
of that, or ramroding that particular legislation, basically
had a falling out many years prior to with a particular
I-29-G3 j~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
72
Sheriff, and was still carrying the chip, and he was going
to try and get them killed, and almost succeeded. But I
will tell you that that -- that particular item has since
died of f_, and basically died in committee. The --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, the guy was
the Sheriff. He was the Sheriff of Travis County.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct. That's
correct, he had a problem with
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, that's right.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. Well, it was an
interesting situation, but, thankfully, that has gone away.
I can tell you also that this past year, we had some issues
with regard to some of the documentation that the governor's
office was wanting with regard to guarantees. We, as the
sponsor agency of the City, were being required to put some
information in the agreement -- or I should say the
resolutions authorizing participation in this, that
basically said that if any other participating agency failed
to pay, that we would be liable for it as the city entity.
At that point in time, we refused to sign it; said we don't
agree with that. Made a -- it took, I guess -- what, Ilse?
Two months?
25 ~ MS. BAILEY: At least two or three months.
?-~9-03 jcc
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: At least two or three months
worth of going back and forth. We finally came up with some
compromised language that works, that basically refers them
back to the agreement. So, anyway -- and the agreement has
all of the other agencies signing agreements to pay. So,
anyway, their guarantees are what we're relying on. That
said, what you have here is you see -- you'll see here that
we have the State proposed grant funding at $442,284 (sic),
the County match at $43,698, the City match at $42,772, and
other agencies at $81,376. The other agencies include
various counties and cities. I'll tell you who they are
very quickly: City of Kerrville, City of Ingram, Kerr
County, City of Fredericksburg, Gillespie County, City of
Boerne, Kendall County, Bandera County are all the agencies
that are participating in this.
You can also see over here on the side of the
backup data, the drugs seized, we have a street value of
over $440,000 last year. And then the current year thus
far, over $294,000, 224 cases, and 176 arrests. The funding
is down from last year. Obviously, with the -- the problems
that the State went through this year with funding, this is
one of the areas that they did cut. It's down; you can see
it was $642,715. And then we have a total match from all
agencies added together is $187,511. And this matching
money, where does that come from? That is made up from the
~-gig-o3 ~c~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
various agencies putting personnel into that program and
paying the salaries and benefits of those personnel through
this program. So, these numbers directly reflect the cost
of those employees being assigned to the task force.
MR. SMITH: Are the drugs and the cases and
everything -- is that for Kerr County, or is that for the --
for the whole area?
MR. DICKERSON: Total.
MR. SMITH: It's total task force area?
MR. DICKERSON: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. DICKERSON: But the lion's share of it is
Kerrville/Kerr County.
MR. PATTERSON: Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the State funding
is down?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that means that we
bump up. Now, what kind of increase are you talking about,
the City?
MR. PATTERSON: Actually, the -- the County
will have a reduction of about $1,264. The City would
actually reduce by about $3,200.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: It's based on a matching
-29-03 jcc
75
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
formula. It's a percentage. As well as the -- 'cause
you've got program income, so what's happening is -- is that
we're hoping we get more program income off of it to be able
to generate additional revenue there. But --
MR. DICKERSON: Basically, what's happened is
the feds gave less money, State's going to give less money.
The task force has just cut their budget to the bone. If
they hit us again next year with a 20 percent or 13 percent
cut, we're going to have to start cutting personnel, 'cause
we don't have anything else to cut. We're not buying any
vehicles this year. You know, it's just bare bones.
JUDGE TINLEY: Is there a different matching
formula or percentage for county governments versus city
governments?
MR. PATTERSON: I'm going to let Chuck answer
that. He's --
MR. DICKERSON: Pretty much what -- the
reasoning -- the county match is usually higher than city
match, because you have more -- you've got the Assistant
D.A., which is a higher salaried person, plus your two --
two officers over there, investigators. City has two
officers and a -- the secretary over there. So, the
reasoning behind your being, you know, about a thousand more
than us is because you've got more expensive personnel over
there, I guess, or benefits.
7-29-03 jcc
76
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 TINLEY: Well, maybe you answered my
question, but maybe I just didn't catch it. The reason for
my question is the -- the -- the amount of participation is
pretty close to equal both years, but on the reduction for
this particular year, it's about two and a half times -- the
City received about two and a half times the reduction that
the County did, and that's what's kind of confusing to me.
MR. DICKERSON: Okay. The confusion is the
County's got the same Assistant D.A. and the same two
officers on there. The City doesn't have that. We -- we
took two officers that were married with -- with family
dependents, and we replaced them with two single guys. So,
there's the reduction in --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. DICKERSON: -- benefits.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's the type and
classification of personnel?
MR. DICKERSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good. Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: As well as all their -- not
just salary, but all their benefits.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, I understand it includes
all of it, but -- but the type and classification of
personnel.
MR. DICKERSON: Right.
7-2°-03 jcc
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~. 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Any other
questions on that item? Okay. Next item is the Kerr
County/Kerrville Louis Schreiner Airport. In this
particular item -- excuse me. As you know, the airport
currently operates -- it's fifty-fifty owned between the
City and the County. After doing a -- a great deal of
research over the last several months, I know we've had some
conversations with the Judge and with Mr. Williams with
regard to some of the research we've done. It's interesting
that way back when, when the airport was first evolving, we
had issues with regard to -- it was pretty much in the city,
and then it was decided -- you know, everybody decided to
move out. And then, at that point in time when it moved,
there was a joint ownership that occurred. Some of you may
know the history even better than I do, but at that point in
time, in looking at it -- I don't know what all the
rationale was at that time, but at that point in time, half
of the land was deeded to the County.
During that process, we also saw that we --
there was time periods in there where, you know, the City
said, well, you know, it doesn't seem to be, you know,
working out so well. So, you know, they said, why don't we
go and see if the Ccunty wants to take it over? And the
County said no, we don't want to take it over, but perhaps
instead what we can do is create this airport authority, as
7-"~9-U3 jcc
78
1
-- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
.~ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
it was called. However -- and, as a matter of fact, it --
there was action taken by the Commissioners Court and the
Council to create the authority. There was an election
held. However, prior to that happening, there was a board
that was appointed. And, again, why the timing of all this,
I'm not clear on. I'll just tell you that I can show you
the date the board was created. Once the board was created,
then at that point in time, the authority was never
utilized. The -- the authority was -- it had no taxing
powers. It -- nobody was ever appointed to it. It just sat
there, but the airport board continued on.
Shortly thereafter, after the election was
done and all of that, in the -- in the '70's, then there was
a follow-up to that. There was obviously a question about,
well, how much authority does the board have, not have, et
cetera? And then the Council and the Commission both passed
resolutions -- or I should say, you know, minute orders of
the Court, and said no, you know, we never intended it to
have all this authority. It's a -- it is an advisory board
only. Okay? I mean, that -- and -- well, that's it in a
real short nutshell, back and forth. And the reality is --
is that here we are today, and the question comes, and I'll
-- what is it? You know, how much authority does the board
have? You know, the authority sitting there, does it need
to be, you know, disposed of, or can it just sit there?
~-~9-G3 cc
79
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
Now, also, in addition to that, the question
of, well, if you've got the board and what it can and can't
do and the authority that it has, well, we've also run into
several issues here in the last several months where we
have -- it's nobody's fault, but you've got county
government under one body of law and a city under another
body of law, and you've got issues like leasing and those
type things, where under -- under one organization, with the
City, you know, they don't have to bid leases and that kind
of stuff, where the County does. Nobody's fault, but the
problem is it's got two different bodies of law, and how do
you deal with that?
Well, after doing some additional research,
it appears as though that the authority under which the
board was formed used to be called the Texas Municipal
Airport Act. It is now rolled into the Texas Transportation
Code. And, basically, what that says is -- is that under
that authority, that the board can have additional powers.
In other words, it can do things like leases; it can enter
into them directly, that type of thing. They can establish
budgets and adopt budgets and, again, all of those kinds of
things. So, there's all of those questions, you know, of
what do we want to be when we grow up? And the reality
is -- is that where we are today is that, you know, we have
a board that really, under those authorities that
7-29-G3 cc
80
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
established them, enabling legislations, really has some
additional authority. And so, you know, how do we deal with
that? What do we do with it and how do we want -- how do we
want them to interact with you and you interact with them,
as far as the governing bodies? And so there's a lot of
questions with regard to that.
You know, there -- there's all kinds of
options with it. One of the things that had been discussed
was the idea of, well, if -- if that helps resolve -- if
this body has the additional powers, if we can help resolve
those issues with regard to leasing and management and all
that kind of stuff with them, the first question comes, do
you feel comfortable with that? Are you okay with it? You
know, are you okay investing -- or vesting, I should say,
those powers there? If you are, then, you know, we've got
the issue of the day-to-day management. You know, we have
the Airport Manager and we have the Street Department that
puts X's on the runway and takes care of the streets and all
that kind of stuff. Well, you know, there's been some
discussion about, well, if they have those authorities, then
perhaps that board then can then turn around and contract
directly, you know, with -- with the City to -- to manage
it. Now, again, we've already talked about whether the
board does it or the City and the County, but having some
sort of interlocal agreement to do that. So, that is an
7-~9-U3 jcc
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issue that is up for discussion and open.
Other than that, I will tell you that we've
got, you know, the funding issues here that -- that we
wanted to talk about tonight. I went too far, sorry. Part
of the -- part of the discussions also revolved around the
fact that right now, the way we've been operating in the
past several years, it's been that, well, what we'll do is
it's basically running itself -- you know, supporting
itself, that type thing. However, one of the things in
going back and, you know, looking at budgets and analyzing
it, well, it became fairly apparent quickly that, you know,
the Airport Manager was not in that budget. And, you know,
the legal support was not in that budget. The bottom line
is -- is the budget that we used to have really didn't
reflect what the cost of the operation was, and so part of
what the proposal to take a look at was -- is moving those
costs -- or at least starting that process; not all of them
at this point in time, but to move at least the Airport
Manager into that cost. In other words, expense it against
the Airport Fund, as it should be. Right now, all of that
is funded out of the General Fund.
And so, you know, we said, well, I think it
makes sense to push all of that into the Airport Fund.
We've also made some additional changes in some of our other
budgets, where we've got, you know, people in different
7-29-03 cc
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
departments in -- you know, some are paid out of -- half out
of one and half out of another. We started pushing them
into the departments where they belong. That way all of you
have a real picture of what does that operation cost?
Otherwise, you get a skewed view of it. With that said,
what we have here -- and, again, you can see here revenues
on the backup data. T-hangars are at 100 percent. I know I
saw some other stuff come through my office. Are we still
at 100?
MR. PEARCE: We're still at 100 percent right
now, and we've got three people on the waiting list for more
T-hangars, so we've done real well in the last four months
as far as bringing the revenues in. And so -- and I
envision we'll maintain 100 percent all year.
MR. PATTERSON: The -- I think the way that
we're managing the leases now and the ability to get those
out the door quickly has been very positive, being able to
keep them full. 'Cause for a while there, you know, we
weren't. We had some turnover, and contracts weren't
getting done timely. And, I mean, bottom line is -- is that
we`ve got a process now, I think, that works very well.
Ilse has been very involved with the airport ever since all
this discussion came up, and her and David have been working
together very well and been able to keep these moving.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, before you leave
7-29-03 jcc
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
T-hangars, --
MR. PATTERSON: Yes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- what is ours compared
the to the New Braunfels, Fredericksburg kind of market we
compete against? What are our rental rates?
MR. PEARCE: $250 per month right now. If --
you get a 5 percent discount if you contract for -- or lease
for three years. That's competitive. If you take a look at
surrounding areas, depending on which type of hangar they're
looking at, they run between $240 and $280. If you go into
the metroplex, they're running about $360 to $450. But the
one thing you have to be a little careful about when you --
you do look at other airports and you do look at what
they're leasing, but you also have to take a look at your
market. The market right now in Kerrville, what is the
market -- what does it draw? And if you take the market at,
let's say, Meacham Field -- well, that's the Dallas
metroplex; that's not really a fair comparison.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure.
MR. PEARCE: So we look at what our land
values are, what our lease rates are, what we can draw, what
is a fair market value. And I believe we've hit it right on
target, $250. I'm not -- certainly not recommending any
increases right now. We're 100 percent leased with three on
a waiting list. I think that's pretty good.
7-29-03 jcc
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-~-, 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
~-.
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. SMITH: You said $200 one time, then
$250. What is it?
MR. PEARCE: It's $250.
MR. SMITH: $250, okay. I misunderstood you.
MR. PATTERSON: We -- in addition, why don't
you go ahead and walk them through the fuel flowage and the
nonaviation-related leases as well?
MR. PEARCE: Fuel flowage right now, it's up.
We draw -- I believe it's 5 cents -- no, it's 9 cents a
gallon for fuel that's sold out there, both 100 low-lead and
for Jet-A. That fluctuates, depending on what your -- how
much traffic you have and what the sales are. One month you
may see a real high spike, and the next month real low. I
look at it on an annual basis, and then in snapshots. If we
look over the last five years, we run pretty close to
$18,000 a year in fuel flowage fees, and that seems to
sustain right across-the-board. The interesting thing about
that is, 9/11, you'd expect that there would be some impact
there, and there certainly was during the month, but when we
look at how we're going to close out this year, we're still
going to be at $18,000, so we've been able to sustain that
through the whole year. I think you'll see a spike on that.
Again, that fluctuates. It's like looking at
sales tax revenues or something of that nature. You
7-29-03 jcc
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forecast what your best guess is based on the market at that
time. But we have a new aircraft, we have more aircraft
coming in, we got a new hangar that's going to be built.
We're definitely going to see some consumption going up
there that's going to put us probably 60,000 to
80,000 gallons a year going up. If we continue at that
pace, I think we'll see fuel flowage fees going up even
more.
And then, excuse me, nonaviation-related
leases, brilliant move of B.A. Products going in. I wish I
could take credit for that, and I can't; that was certainly
done before my time. Those folks have leased up some areas.
They're looking at what we call the old E.A.A. facility,
which is the blue T-hangar down at the end of the airport,
right across from Kerrville Aviation. That particular place
is leased right now at 100 percent; they're looking at
expanding. If we can close that area off -- we got a
forecast in the budget line item to do a concrete slab under
an overhang and close that off. If we're able to do that,
that will be an expanded lease there. B.A. Products is also
looking into expanding over the next couple of years.
They're busting at the seams, and I think we're going to see
quite a bit of an increase in that market too. And that's a
good move for the airport, because not only is all your eggs
in one basket, where you have everything related to
-~9-03 jcc
86
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,.., 2 4
25
aviation, you also got a little bit of industrial off to the
side, and that helps balance the spikes in there. So, we're
looking real good across-the-board there.
MR. PATTERSON: I want to keep you on the
MR. PEARCE: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Go ahead and walk them
through the infrastructure that's going on that's really
funded in '02 and '03, and what's going on now and what the
proposal is.
MR. PEARCE: Currently, we have a project
that's on the -- on the table; that was the one that we just
received the bids back, and that's a runway overlay,
expansion of airport -- or the apron for -- parking apron,
relocation of the entrance road, and we were able to have
some bid alternates also go in on there. And the bid
alternates was slurry seal on the taxiway, the taxiway also
being slurry-sealed, which wasn't in the original forecast.
But we asked TexDOT to come down here about three weeks ago,
and it's a little bit of gamesmanship, but you ask them to
put that in as a bid alternate, so the contractor bids on
it. If you come in under budget and you're able to absorb
that, TexDOT will support it. It's already in the document;
you can continue and do that too. We came in
across-the-board under budget with all three alternates, so
7-~9-03 jcc
87
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
they're going to do everything; take care of some erosion
control, do a taxiway, also do all the forecasted projects
with its $1.9 million. Case is the engineer that got the
bid. The documents are being routed right now for
signature. I look at actually seeing the construction start
about September time frame, October. It will probably go on
for in the neighborhood of about 10 to 11 months, at least,
by the time they're totally finished, but it will be an
excellent project for us.
Sewer project, right now we're on track with
the completion of that. One exception was there was an area
that goes underneath the taxiway on those -- the short
runway; it goes over toward Mooney. When they ran the --
there's a little robot that goes through and takes a look at
how the drain is and how it's all sealed together when it's
sealed up, and there was a little bit of a dip in this area.
The contractor had to break that open and replace that. Not
at our expense, but it is -- that's going to be on target
right now.
MR. PATTERSON: On target money-wise, but
it's late. They spent about two months trying to
directional bore, and they just kept missing it. And it had
a -- supposed to be a gravity feed. It had a bust in it, so
made them rip it out and start over, and they ended up using
a conventional bore, so now it's right. It did slow them
-~9-03 jcc
88
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
down about two months.
MR. PEARCE: We've had a couple of other good
things that have happened. I'm sure a lot of you -- you've
seen me in your offices over the last couple of months. I'm
the kind of a guy who likes to try to chase money and find
excess money if I can in the system and squeeze it out. We
were able to get a R.A.M.P. -- R.A.M.P. money which was not
forecasted at the time. We were able to get that and
turnkey it. It has the starting of some of our security
fencing, wildlife area. It also has an entrance area that
goes into what's the old E.A.A. facility, which is all
concrete which has been poured right now, and we were able
to also utilize some of that money for herbicide
application, which is something that we were paying for in
its entirety before, but it's a fifty-fifty split, and so
might as well utilize those benefits. That happened -- it
was added in at the last minute, but we were able to absorb
that with the fund balance.
The other thing we were able to do was
entitlement, and you'll see in Commissioners Court here in
another week and a half, we got another $150,000; we're able
to absorb that within the airport fund, with fund balance,
and that will bubble in with the already funded security
fencing/wildlife area, and we'll be able to bubble those two
together, which will give us about $320,000, and we can do
~-~9-03 jcc
89
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
our fencing in that area too. With that, I believe,
depending on how the bids come out, that we'll be able to
complete roughly 85 to 90 percent, maybe even do a little
bit better, so we should have the entire airport fenced by
next year with that. So, in the last four months, I guess
you could say, unforecasted, we were able to pull about
$230,000 in that we didn't really plan on, but when you're
talking a 90/10 and a 50/50, that's -- I'm pretty pleased
with that for right now. Going to continue knocking on
doors as we can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. The sewer -- I
mean, the -- above the DSE sewer project, that line goes out
to the new business park and then under 27 and that way.
How'd it get --
MR. PATTERSON: Are you talking about the new
one that DSE's doing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that sewer one --
the one that's up there. The $500,000, yes.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes. The way that works is,
if you're standing on the highway and Mooney's on your left
right here --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay, there's a lift station
right there. I don't know if you've ever seen it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
~-29-G3 jcc
90
1
^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. The way that it goes
is, it goes under the road and down to the business park.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: That's -- that's to serve
them; however, there's also an extension that just goes
directly out to the east. It goes up and it goes just on
the other side of the Mooney buildings and hangs a left, and
it goes all the way up along the Mooney buildings. It bores
underneath the runway, the -- the alternate runway, the
crosswind runway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: Goes underneath there, and
then from there it forks out into the rest of the
development area. So, that's how it gets up there. The
good news is, what that does is -- is that not only does it
open up sewer for folks within the airport, but also Mooney
is going to be able to tap into that line right there so
they won't have as far to run it, so they'll be able to tap
into it for their domestic waste almost immediately once
it's up and running. Then we have the pretreatment issues
we'll have to talk to them about. But that's how it gets
there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it goes over to --
Dugosh and Kerrville Aviation will be on that sewer line?
MR. PATTERSON: I don't think Dugosh; it
-29-03 jcc
91
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
won't go up that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's already at
Kerrville Aviation.
MR. PATTERSON: Excuse me, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's already to
Kerrville Aviation, I believe.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, it's already laid in
there, and that's already up that way. It will serve all
that center area, and then you can go -- you can feed to it,
gravity -- to what's -- I know I'm kind of off here -- kind
of up to the north.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To the north.
MR. PATTERSON: All of that can feed to it.
But if I remember right, it doesn't reach over to Dugosh.
Doesn't go over that direction. That's something we'd like
to be able to do in the future. This will get most of the
prime developable area in and around the hangar area and the
aprons, and as well as the -- what's the word? Not apron --
ramp area; that's the word I'm looking for. Is that --
okay. That's what -- like I said, that is that project
there. And, again, that is -- and, again, somebody asked me
the other day about this. They said, well, is that $500,000
for both projects? It's not. It's about -- this project is
$500,000 on the airport, and the other project was a little
over $500,000 as well. So, yeah.
/-~y-G3 jc~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,~ 2 4
25
92
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just one more question,
MR. PATTERSON: Yes?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the grants, the
$2.4 million -- I guess 1.9, but anyway, that's extending
the runway also? I know it's moving the entrance.
MR. PEARCE: It is not extending the runway,
it's moving the entrance. That is forecasted, although it's
not funded yet, this time, for the extension of the runway.
But that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of the
master plan.
sorry?
master plan.
MR. PEARCE: -- will come into play -- I'm
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's part of the
MR. PEARCE: Yes, it is.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir. Yeah,
that's one of those things we're going to have to look at
funding in the future. With regard to -- you've got airport
-- you've got the runway extension. This just moves the
road to be able to do that, as I said. The other thing that
does is, it also helps protect your RPZ, your runway
protection zone. It will also buy property off-site.
MR. PEARCE: We're in the process right now
7-29-G3 jcc
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
93
of procuring property. TexDOT is acting as our agent for
that. There's about 30 -- 37 to 40 acres that they're
looking at right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To the east?
MR. PEARCE: Both sides.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Both sides.
MR. PATTERSON: That RPZ is real important
for in the future. If you're going to look at instrument
landing systems, you're going to need that protection area
to be able to do that. Okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: Question. I noted that we
were able to -- in your -- in your long-term capital
improvement projects, I recall it was just a couple of
months ago that we did this year's R.A.M.P., and there were
no funds that were required out of that one. Those funds
were taken out of operational funds, revenues that we had
on-hand?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. We -- well, we
were able to do -- this was -- we were able to take those
funds that are in the fund balance and be able to put that
toward that to be able to do that R.A.M.P. project.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: R.A.M.P. money is a weird
deal. He knows it even better than I, but the timing on
them -- they fall at strange times. And also, quite
-29-G3 cc
1
~- 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_ 2 4
25
94
frankly, in the transition between the two staff members,
quite frankly, some of it was, we -- at the last minute,
when he came on board, he got it back up to speed and
started pushing it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Recently, there was a meeting,
and I was under the impression that we reached a consensus
that we were going to try and use this as a separate
operation, as it were, and fund the expenses out of the
revenues derived from that operation. And, as I recall the
figures that we got at that time, there were expenses of
approximately 122, and income of about 116 or 117, and one
of those expenses included in the 122 was the Airport
Manager's salary. But I notice that you've got it here as
part of a separate funding operation, as opposed to taking
it out of the revenues of the -- of the operation out there.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. Actually, what the
proposal here is, is that if you look at -- what we gave you
was a snapshot of the current year. Because you'll remember
that this year, we were each -- we're each putting in -- I
think it was 123,5. You recall the chart that showed 123,5
for each agency.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the capital
improvements, I believe, wasn't it?
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir. Yes,
sir. Well, in looking into next year, we also had this

95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
^ 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
additional entitlement grant, which that was not in those
numbers, as well as the additional $30,000 on the R.A.M.P.,
and the water line. None of that was in those numbers.
Now, one of the things we talked about was being able to --
as you just said, can we show the fund to operate in total,
without any subsidy to it? And the answer is that, when you
run the numbers and you look at the budget in here, that
amount is needed in order to get it to balance, even after
the revenues that are being projected. Am I correctly
stating that?
MR. PEARCE: Exactly. And a couple of those
are issues -- capital projects. The entitlement grant is a
capital project. R.A.M.P. money is a way to leverage and --
and purchase things like herbicide and various other things
where the State will pay half-and-half, and repair of
asphalt, repair of fencing, gates, those type of functions.
The other thing that crops up is this water line that's in
there, and the water line actually is to extend from the
back of the T-hangars down toward the taxiway. There is no
fire hydrant access -- access by the drain hangar or the new
T-hangars. Basically, there's no way to get a pumper truck
in there. I worked that with the fire marshal; we took a
look at all the options and what would be the cheapest cost,
whether it's building a road where we can run a pumper
truck, or how we can drop a line. Working with Paul
7-^9-G3 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
--- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
96
Knippel, as far as in-house, we believe we can drop the line
in there for $25,000, which is the cheapest route, and get
two fire hydrants into that area, which would allow access
to the hangars that are already in existence.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not the capital items
there. The only one that I have a question about is the --
the manager's salary, which is -- which is strictly an
operational thing, and that was one of them that I thought
that we'd reached a consensus on that that would be funded
out of revenues from the actual operation.
MR. PATTERSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And in looking at the --
MR. PATTERSON: If you look at the airport
fund -- the Fund 47 summary sheet there, sir, if you look at
the summary sheet, you'll notice there that it shows total
revenues of 411, with total expenditures of 374. That's the
very first page after -- after the descriptions. It says
Airport Fund Budget Summary, Fund 47. Looks like -- let me
make sure. Looks like this.
20
21
22
23
.--. 24 there.
25
MAYOR FINE: You've gone too far.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right after this.
MAYOR FINE: Should be the next page right
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, I'm with you.
29-03 jcc
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
~,,,_ 2 4
25
MR. PATTERSON: Okay, sir. If you look at
that, that 374, the total expenditures --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. PATTERSON: -- that's there, that does
not include the Airport Manager, okay. So you would have to
add that in. And, yes, we would like for the current
operating revenue to pay for it. There's just not enough,
when you look at that number. 'Cause you can see there,
right now --
JUDGE TINLEY: The 374, then, is -- does not
include the -- the manager's salary. It's over here, off to
the side.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, and the reason that
I di_d it that way -- I know that we had the conversation
with two of your members and two of ours, but I didn't want
to take the presumption of just sticking it in there on the
budget when it wasn't approved yet. So, that's the reason
the number does not reflect it in that summary sheet. And,
as a matter of fact, you can go over -- one, two, three --
three pages, and you'll see where it says Airport Fund
Expenditure Analysis, and it says Personnel Services, zero,
zero, zero, on the left. Should be three pages. You'll
note there, under Personnel Services, it does not list the
salary in there. All that -- or the benefits. That's just
the professional development numbers that are there.
~-29-03 jcc
98
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 TINLEY: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: And, again, as I said, I just
didn't want to be -- maybe I was being too cautious, but I
didn't want to be presumptive and just stick the numbers in
there.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Am I hearing that we
have an expectation that the airport will be self-funding
sometime in the future?
MR. PATTERSON: That is certainly our goal,
sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: County and City
won't incur the annual costs for capital or expense --
MR. PATTERSON: We would love to see that. I
will tell you -- and, again, this is just being very frank
about it. In terms of operational costs, airport manager
costs, you know, all the other things that go along with the
operations of it, I think that you're not too far off from
being able to make those numbers work. As long as we're
going to continue to improve the airport, especially in
conformance with the master plan that's been laid out, I
think that the City and the County will still have to look
at expenditures with regard to matching grants. If you get
a 10-to-1 grant, that's pretty good money in return, but I
do believe that if we are going to move toward what the
vision of that master plan was, I think we both are going to
7-29-03 jcc
99
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
have to continue to look at some additional participation to
be able to match those grants. Especially when -- when you
get a grant, you know, that comes in where -- like, where we
got the 2.4, where we ended up with 123,000. Yeah, it's a
lot of money, 123, but 2.4 is a good return.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, I guess, to follow
up on what Dave said a little bit, I mean, I think we're,
like I said, pretty close to getting it -- not counting the
capital improvements, get it on a break-even basis. My
question is, I know the -- you know, Airport Board and City,
a lot more than the County, spends a lot of time on that
master plan. I guess my question is, who -- it's not clear
to me that some of these improvements that we -- that we
need some of these improvements, I guess, is the easy way to
say it. Clearly, we want to have a good airport. Clearly,
we have a very nice airport. But we keep on making it
bigger, bigger, but who are we benefiting there? I mean, I
see pretty big jets in there already, and I can't imagine
wanting anything -- or anything bigger is going to be coming
in. Most of that traffic -- I mean, I just am wondering
where we're going with the airport. And I asked and
received a review of the master plan probably six months
ago, but I'm not sure I understood a whole lot after that
review than I did before. So, I mean, at some point --
MR. PATTERSON: Well --
7-39-03 jcc
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
100
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I would like to,
again, you know, in a plain way or simple way that I can
understand it, kind of give me the vision of where the
airport's going.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, let me tell you
about -- I'll just try and keep it brief -- an experience
with a neighbor city up in the north Texas area, McKinney,
who has had a huge success with regard to managing an
airport and seeing a great deal of economic benefit. The
idea of being able to put infrastructure in place in an
airport that will bring the kind of aircraft that bring the
kind of business that you want is really what it's all
about. If you have an airport that serves nothing but the
Piper Cub and the -- you know, all of those kind of things,
that's nice to have, but when the Challengers and, you know,
the Canada Airs and all of those kind of people start
rolling in the door, like this most recent one where there's
a $14 million aircraft that puts its wheels down, the City
and the County both benefit from the tax revenue based on
that. So, not only do you get that, but also you get the
fuel flowage to help pay for the airport and all of those
kinds of things.
The reality is -- is that, you know, we don't
see a benefit whereby we look at it and go, "Well, you know,
we're just servicing airplanes." We look at it and go,
7-~9-03 jcc
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
101
that's -- like infrastructure, you know, like Lowes or Home
Depot or somebody plopping down a building. They bring that
aircraft, it's taxable. And, quite frankly, in terms of how
much support you have to give that airplane for the value
you get, it's actually fairly low overall. So, I think when
you look -- do a cost benefit that way, I think you can see
that you get a fairly decent return on it. The idea being
that if you create an environment where you have hangars,
runway space, you know, instrument landing systems and
towers and those kind of things that can attract that type
of thing, that you can then, in turn, tax, I see a benefit
there. In addition to that, the spinoff on that is
additional development that can happen on the airport to
either directly support aviation or, as he was talking about
earlier, the nonaviation-related leases. In other words,
you create an environment where they can kind of feed off of
each other.
The biggest problem that we've had in recent
years, in my opinion -- this is just Ron's opinion, and Dave
may even want to -- may argue with me here, but part of the
biggest issue we've had is that you couldn't get a whole lot
of development -- forget the runway for a minute, but you
had water, but no sewer, you know. And when people go, "You
mean I got to put in a septic system? Huh, maybe not." You
know. Well, in addition to that, I think if we can finish
~-29-03 jcc
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
102
those utilities, make sure our road infrastructure is in
place, our water and utility -- sewer, utilities are in
place, all of that kind of stuff, I think we're going to
start to see the master plan coming into focus. I also
think that, as we grow that master plan -- and, again, I'm
trying to, like I said, keep it to a point where I think
that we need to keep the focus of the value that the
airplanes bring -- the bigger ones bring that we can tax.
The spinoff that may come with those that we can, you know,
tax, and maybe even sales tax.
And, in addition to that, the last thing
would be the spinoff businesses that are nonaviation-related
that can come with that. You got to properly plan the
airport, though, and -- and push that plan to the front, or
it will grow Willy-nilly, and quite frankly, you end up in a
catch-22 where you got a great runway and a great I.L.S. and
all that, but you can't build anything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I support the
economic development side of this wholeheartedly. My
concern is on the -- I just recall conversations -- you
know, prior reviews we've had on the airport that kind of --
you know, we improve the runway and do all this and
configure jets, and all of a sudden, the weight capacity is
such we got to redo everything again and upgrade it. It's
kind of a never-ending cycle of improvement at the airport.
7-^9-G3 jcc
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
103
I'm not sure I want to get in that cycle. I do think it's
very important for us to get the -- the infrastructure in
place to encourage other companies like B.A. going out
there -- B.A. Products, and -- and other aviation-related
companies to locate in Kerrville.
MR. PATTERSON: Right.
MR. PEARCE: If I might be able to add, orie
of the things that we're challenged with in the aviation
community is not necessarily changing to build and bring
somebody else in; it's also trying to support the existing
market demand. People are no longer flying small
twin-engine or single-engine airplanes for businesses. It's
not uncommon to have a single owner that comes in in his
jet, whereas before that wasn't the case. There's a lot of
folks that -- we had an individual land here about three
weeks ago in a 737, his own private airplane. The market is
changing and the demand is changing, and so we're trying to
accommodate the folks that are coming in, the businesses
that are coming in.
An example, or one of the places in the
process of moving is -- McKinney is changing now, and they
have to change some of their -- their support for Texas
Instruments. Texas Instruments is now buying two Global
Expresses. A Global Express costs approximately $58 million
apiece, and they're going to go on the tax roll. The reason
i 9 03 jcc
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
they're going to a Global Express for a private business is
because they're moving internationally between Asia and
straight into McKinney, which is how they got customs; they
had to accommodate for that market. Probably ten years ago,
we didn't even think about a business taking nonstop flights
to Japan. And so we're trying to accommodate those
customers that we have here or trying to relocate here for
our advantage. And -- and the good thing about that -- I
sound like a salesman, but the good thing about that is
those moneys go into the General Fund. They don't go to the
airport, like the revenues we get for fuel sales, and that
goes in the airport and helps us be self-sufficient. The
stuff that goes into the General Fund, that pays for our
police, that pays for our fire, that pays for our water,
that pays for our schools, and you know that's good. I
mean, that's a good thing. And so, if we can attract those
type of things in there, I think we will all benefit from
that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dave, don't sit down.
I see we're proposing an I.L.S., and I understand that,
clearly, that that would be -- that would be a big part of
attraction. But I remember years ago, we had also talked
about -- and seemed like that we purchased a glide slope
system. Is that system in place?
MR. PEARCE: No, sir, you do not have a glide
7-~9-03 jcc
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
slope system here. There's a localizer approach, but that
doesn't give you your azimuth; that just gives your
direction.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We never followed
through with it?
MR. PEARCE: We never got to the second
phase. And what I've been able to find is there was an
attempt to get a full I.L.S. in here, but when it was
discovered that the F.A.A. would not fund it, it kind of
stopped right there. What I presented here for
consideration in the future is we can do that at a local --
MR. PATTERSON: Keep talking for a second.
MR. PEARCE: We can do that at local expense
and still get the precision approach in here, which would be
a major benefit for -- as far as serving the customers that
are already demanding. And the reason I -- I mention that
is because a lot of your corporate businesses, they're not
allowed to come in unless they have a precision approach,
not necessarily whether they need it. It can be perfect
weather, but part of their flight rules say they need to
have a precision approach, and so that's something that we
need to consider of what we want to do in the future.
MR. KNIPPEL: We do have glide slope
indicators.
25 ~ MR. PEARCE: You have the PAPIs and the
7-29-03 jcc
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
VASIs, but that is actually for visual when you come in.
You can look at the -- for azimuth, for your -- your actual
I.L.S., sitting in your cockpit. You got a little bar, and
you can watch that, and it will tell you whether you're too
high or too low, and you can fly it right down to 200 feet.
And then you'll have the runway perfectly in sight and right
on the line. So, you can actually be in the clouds until
200 feet over the ground and be right perfectly at the end
of the runway. And that's the benefit of the -- having the
glide slope, whereas now we've got the side view, but until
you get the runway visually from the VASIs or PAPIs, you
can't see -- you can't get down to those.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- go ahead.
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: David, I recall you
reporting to the Airport Board about the fact that grant
money seems to be -- F.A.A. grant money seems to have dried
up, for instance, for instrument landing systems.
MR. PEARCE: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me finish; you
can just respond to the whole thing.
MR. PEARCE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I recently attended a
national gathering of COG people in which we had a speaker
from the F.A.A. from Washington. I asked him that question
7-~9-G3 jcc
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
107
about whether or not those moneys had, in fact, dried up,
and he said yes, but there are still F.A.A. moneys out there
for global or GPS-type systems for that same purpose. Are
you aware of that, and --
MR. PEARCE: Yes, I am.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- does that have a
possibility --
MR. PEARCE: That is -- yes and no. I sound
like -- the W.A.A.S. system is what the F.A.A. is going to,
which is Wide Area Augmentation Systems, is what it stands
for. And what that will do is put something on the ground
with the satellite to allow to you fly a precision approach.
To have that installed right now, they're looking at 2012 to
2015 for some of your commercial airports. For Kerrville
and the general aviation market, we're looking at probably
2020 to 2025, if we can get it. What that means from the
F.A.A. standpoint is they're not funding any more I.L.S.'s.
They're only going to fund W.A.A.S. and help support the
I.L.S.'s that are already in the system.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. PEARCE: So, for us, if we want to get a
precision approach, we will need to fund that ourselves.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. PEARCE: There's a big, wide window in
there that it's just not available.
-29-03 jcc
108
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: The government man
didn't tell us that part.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My last comment on -- off
this specific comment is, I think it would be helpful -- I'm
not anti-airport by any means, but it just helps, 'cause I
get questions from constituents who want to know why we're
spending all this money for these few people -- if we had
the information readily available as to the economic or the
tax standpoint of the inventory and companies out there and
aircraft. I don't know how hard it is to pull that out.
MR. PEARCE: You actually do. I think I
left --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I distributed one to
you. You didn't read it.
MR. PEARCE: -- a copy of that. It's --
you've got $30 million of economic impact for Kerrville per
year, 590 jobs that are directly impacted by it. It was a
study just done about a year and a half, two years ago, and
there's -- it shows all the comparison of the airports
around. If you need additional copies, I can get that.
It's about 28 to 30 airports in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but, I mean, I
don't like those numbers. I mean, I think those are Chamber
of Commerce numbers, and they kind of use multipliers and
all that. I want to know the value -- tell me the gross
7-29-03 jcc
109
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
value of the inventory of planes that are in Kerrville, and
I can figure out how much the County's making off that each
year. I mean, I don't care about the employees and all
that. I mean, I care about them, but I want to know the
asset value.
MR. PATTERSON: I'm sorry. Does this report
show the number of aircraft and the value of each?
MR. PEARCE: No, it doesn't, because it
will -- it will encompass the air -- the value of the
airplanes that are on the tax roll, and that's different.
If you have a privately-owned airplane that does not list it
as your business, you're not going to derive any tax
benefits off of that, so those are set to the side. If you
have one that's in a business name, that's when we're going
to generate those tax revenues.
MR. PATTERSON: That's the big boys.
MR. PEARCE: And that's the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was, I apologize, only
half listening. If it's not listed as a business asset,
it's not taxed?
MR. PEARCE: No.
MR. BROWN: Like a car.
MR. PEARCE: Exactly the same thing; it's
like a car. Now, your larger --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some counties tax cars.
.-2a-03 jcc
110
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
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. PEARCE: Between jets, 99 percent of
those are listed. If you take your smaller aircraft, you
won't derive a tax benefit, but those will contribute as far
as generating fuel sales and those type of things.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, what's the --
the -- go back to your first question, Ron, as to the -- the
big picture of how we run the airport. How do you recommend
we -- I mean, I don't think we're able to do that tonight.
How do we tackle that?
MR. PATTERSON: Well, the -- the discussion
that -- and it was a very good discussion we had about --
the four members talking about, you know, here's all the
options. The reality is, I think you have -- I think you
really have three. One of them is either -- County operate
it. Second one is the City operates it. Third one is we
stay joint, but then we go in and allow the board and
authorize the board to have the authority -- you know, which
I think they're already authorized, you know. And -- but
allow that to continue; go with that process, allowing them
to enter into leases. But what that means is -- is they act
on your behalf, okay? So, you know, you've got to make sure
that you've -- you've got the trust level, you've got people
there that you want and need. And that -- and I'm not
saying the current ones are not, I'm just saying that that's
i-~9-G3 jcc
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
111
just the reality.
But then that board, then, is now responsible
for the management and operation. And I say that as two
different things. Management as, you know, running day --
you know, running the budget, putting it into place,
presenting it for passage, all those things, and even going
to the City and the County and asking for money, because
there is no taxing authority. Then the operation is that
day-to-day operation where you've got, you know, the Airport
Manager who's going to run -- you know, and you've got the
Street Department who, like I said, puts X's on the runways
or takes care of the streets. You've got, you know, Legal,
who's working with all the contracts, managing all of that.
So, at that point in time, that body needs support. They
need administrative support. And I believe that they can
contract -- and they could with the City.
I mean, basically, we're doing the same thing
we are now, but we have an interlocal agreement between the
City and that board to do those services. So -- and then
that's another option. And I think it's one that -- you
know, again, I would say that if you go that route, that if
that body's going to do that and enter into that agreement,
you would almost treat it as if you were outsourcing the
management, if you were going to get a private company who
runs airports, you know, and they're responsible for that

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
112
management. And if they don't perform on the contract,
then, you know, deal with it that way.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the only oversight
under that scenario that the City or the County would have
would be appointment to that board, and deciding whether
we're going to fund something if they ask us to fund it?
MR. PATTERSON: That is correct. That is
correct, sir. Your analysis is --
MAYOR FINE: A lot like E.I.C. right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bad example.
MAYOR FINE: Well, but it's one that's worked
for a long time. I mean, if --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but there's --
yeah. Well, I think it's different than E.I.C.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think so.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, they have more -- it's --
I'm just saying, as far as having their own budget, you put
them on there, they spend the money, they handle the
day-to-day stuff of those moneys, how it's spent. And --
MR. PATTERSON: The management concept is the
same.
MAYOR FINE: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: What they do is contract for
a specific dollar amount to be paid, and then those services
are provided to them. The difference is -- is that there's
-~9-03 jcc
113
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 taxing authority under one, and the other one has none and
they have to go ask for those funds to be provided. So, as
you said -- I mean, you hit the nail on the head. The
authority that -- or I should say the place where you have
the hold is going to be on the funding mechanism side and on
who you appoint.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, it's more akin to
appraisal districts.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: More akin to what,
Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The appraisal district,
where you have -- appointments are made by entities, and
they have their own budgets, they run their own operation.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, that's a good analogy.
That's a good analogy. With the fact that the -- that, you
know, with -- 'cause the appraisal district, where do they
get their money?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From us.
MR. PATTERSON: So it will be the same thing.
So --
MR. SMITH: I thought either the board or the
authority, one or the other, had taxing authority.
MR. PATTERSON: No, sir. Actually, they
specifically, at the point in time the election was called
and held, under that legislative -- or enabling legislation,

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
114
it said you have to have two items on the ballot if you want
them to have taxing authority. One is the creation of the
authority. The second is the taxing authority given to
them. When the election was held, there was one item on the
agenda; that was the creation of the authority.
MR. SMITH: Well, you could modify it so they
would have taxing authority if -- if the -- if we desired
for them to have it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have to go back to --
MAYOR FINE: Back to the voters.
MR. PATTERSON: With an election, yes, sir.
And it would be a totally separate taxing entity.
MR. SMITH: Okay, I understand.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see that
flying.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Not tonight.
MAYOR FINE: No pun intended.
MR. PATTERSON: I understand. So, I -- you
know, again, I -- we are -- and, again, from our discussion,
you know, we're prepared to take a stab at, you know,
looking at interlocal agreements, all of those kinds of
things, from a staff perspective. Quite frankly, the only
thing is, is that we were -- we've started looking at it,
but we kind of wanted to hear, you know, from the whole
body, you know, and a general idea of what the thoughts
7-?9-03 jcc
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
were.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like what we're
doing. I like the City/County program with the board. What
I don't understand is, do we -- do we continue with the
budget like we're doing now?
MR. PATTERSON: No, sir. Basically, what
would happen is -- the reason that -- well, first of all,
the reason that what we're doing today really doesn't work
is because you have an airport board who really has more
authority than -- than it's been doing in the past.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What I meant was, as
that -- I like the third option. The first option was the
County run it, the City run it, and then the third option.
I like the third option.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I meant.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. The difference would
be, is that with the Airport Manager's help, the Airport
Board would develop a budget. They would then, in turn,
submit that to the City and County for review and approval,
and it's either thumbs up or thumbs down. And then, at that
point in time, they -- and the manager and -- and would then
be in charge of going and implementing that budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the Airport Manager,
at this point, works for the board, not the City or the
7-29-03 jcc
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
116
County.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, actually, the way that
we had envisioned it would be that there would be a
contract -- an interlocal agreement with the City, okay?
That -- he would still be an employee, so he'd keep all of
the benefits, all that kind of stuff, all right? But
through that contract, okay, he would report to them, in
terms of keeping track of budgets, day-to-day operations,
all of those kind of things, okay? But he would still be an
employee of the City.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: My sense is that the
costs of the airport would go up under that third option.
That would -- appointed board would be less sensitive to
costs and revenues than the current situation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that the makeup
of that board, you have to -- you look at in a different
light than the County currently has. We've looked at it as
an advisory board. I think if you, all of a sudden,
financially -- I mean, the appointments may change.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, that's what he was saying
earlier, and that's in our BCI. You look at who you put on
specific boards very carefully, depending upon maybe their
backgrounds, even, and how you put them on there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. BROWN: Some people are willing to spend
7-^9-03 jcc
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
a lot more time.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
MR. BROWN: Board members are having to
spend -- they may -- those people may be willing to do it,
but if they're not ...
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I see it as a
catalyst for making the airport stand on its own two feet.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And get us there a
little more rapidly than we would otherwise get there,
because they're going to be charged with the responsibility
of making that thing pay its way. And the only thing that
they really would want to come back to us -- either of us
for would be for grant moneys, if they hadn't generated
enough revenue to cover the grants. I think they have the
opportunity to do that, too.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, if that's the
most likely outcome, I'd sure support that.
MAYOR FINE: I agree with Bill; I think
that's -- and that's kind of what we discussed in that
meeting we had before, was that scenario. That would make
it --
MR. PATTERSON: Just standing here thinking
through this, listening to what Commissioner Baldwin said,
there really is a fourth option.
?-~9-03 jcc
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
118
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Uh-huh.
MR. PATTERSON: And it didn't even dawn on
me --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Here it comes.
MAYOR FINE: He didn't say it was a good one.
MR. PATTERSON: Didn't even dawn on me till I
was just standing here. The fourth option is -- and you
kind of mentioned -- I know you meant, "I like Option 3,"
but it made me think, and that is that if you really want it
to be advisory and you want it to be just like it is, we
keep pressing on, you can go in and you can do away with the
board as-is, under the authority it was created, 'cause it
was created under the Texas Municipal Airport Act, and say,
you know, I'm going -- you could take the same people, even
reappoint them to the new advisory airport board. Okay?
You can do that. The problem with it is this; we end up
right back with the issues we were dealing with just
recently with the bidding, you know, all of these things
that -- I mean, we're right back where we started. If you
want a more efficient operation that's customer-friendly,
that we can respond to the customers who go, "Hey, I want to
put that out there," or, "I want to develop this hangar,"
or, "I want to do this." If the board can do that without
having to bid and do all that other kind of stuff, I think
you're going to see a better response. That's -- so -- but
~-29-C3 ~cc
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
119
there is that fourth option. But, again, it puts you right
back in the pickle barrel you were in before.
(Discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We need to finish this up
in a future discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I thought he asked a
question, "What do y'all think?" Didn't he ask that
question?
MAYOR FINE: Yeah.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tried to answer it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like Option 3 the best,
I think. But I need to think some more.
MAYOR FINE: I think Option 3 is the one we
need to explore, get into some more detail about how the
interlocal agreements would work, maybe the funding
mechanisms. I think there -- you know, what I'm hearing
there is some concern about how the interlocal agreements
would work. And, I mean, I -- we've done it before with you
guys, other entities, but I think we just need to look at it
a little bit deeper on Option 3. I think listening to
Option 1 and 2 are out. Option 4, plugging like we're
doing, it's not working well, so -- is that where
everybody's at? Are we on the same page, on Option 3?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in agreement with
7-~9-03 jcc
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
120
you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's one other
point, Ron. It's a minor point, but the current board also
has the authority to sit as a zoning board of adjustment for
airport and that which is related to airport.
MR. PATTERSON: That is correct, and that is
a typical power given to an airport board that they do need,
because there is overlay districts, there's all kind of
zoning issues with regard to RPZ, all kind of things that
they need to be able to deal with.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there any mechanisms
to turn the board into an elected board?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably under the
authority.
MR. PATTERSON: Under the authority, there
was an option, and after the election -- I'm stretching my
memory here a little bit, but if I remember right, the act
-- the enabling legislation for an authority said that you
can have an election and then, so many days after that
election, you have to declare, are they going to be
appointed or elected? And that has already been declared
that they would be appointed, so I believe that item is lost
without another election, but I -- I have to verify that.
MR. BROWN: Would it be reasonable to --
7-29-03 jcc
121
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
several people have indicated a preference for Option Number
3, for the -- Ron and the staff to put together a kind of an
outline of that sort of thing and distribute to everybody
for further consideration? You know, a more detailed and
written basis.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Some of the
particulars of it.
MR. BROWN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Of an interlocal
agreement.
MR. BROWN: To outline in a detailed manner,
with Dave's help, as we could possibly do, showing all the
warts and the good things, and then we can all take a look
at it.
MR. PATTERSON: What I would like to be able
to do, then, is the staff go off, take a look at, you know,
what would a budget look like under this scenario? How
would it feel? How would you operate it? You know, that
kind of stuff, put that together. Also, maybe go ahead and
put together a draft interlocal agreement so you can look at
it, give that to all of you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You look at it, provide
feedback, and we'll just work on that until we get it
hammered out to -- you know, meeting -- you know, either --
we'll either thumbs-up it or thumbs-down it. Y'all will
7-''9-03 jcc
122
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
tell us one way or the other once we put that together.
That gives us a direction to work with and allows us at
least a concept under which to move forward from this day
forward in dealing with the board and, you know, with the
Commissioners and the Council. So, okay.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
MR. PATTERSON: Make sense? Just trying to
make sure we're all -- okay. Did y'all have any questions?
(Several people speaking at once.)
MR. BROWN: Apparently, it's a problem we
need to resolve.
MR. PATTERSON: All right, sir. We are -- we
know which direction to head. Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just -- I just
wanted to say, y'all don't forget we have a court reporter
over here trying to take down -- she can only take down one
voice at a time.
MAYOR FINE: One quick voice. Why don't we
take five minutes, let everybody take a break before we move
on to the next one, if necessary? All right. Several of us
have already been sneaking out.
MR. PATTERSON: That's fine.
MAYOR FINE: Some people are trapped up there
and may not be able to get out, so we'll take just five.
(Recess taken from 7:27 p.m. to 7:35 p.m.)
7-~9-03 jcc
123
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: Waiting on Gene.
MR. PATTERSON: Want me to go ahead and
start?
MAYOR FINE: Sure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can pray again.
MR. PATTERSON: The next item is under Tab 8,
which is Community Recycling Center. This particular item
is where the City currently operates a recycling center that
is on County-owned property, and the City leases that
property. And then, at that point in time, what we have
been doing and through this process has been -- is that if
there is participation in improvements to that, that both
entities participate. However, at any given time, if that
facility were to close and leave, the improvements stay with
the property; i.e. they stay with the County. Right now,
you can see here that there has been a great deal of
expansion at the facility. This facility -- number one goal
is to redirect the waste stream from the landfill, and it
has done a very good job of that.
As you can see here over to the right, see
that there's been expansion of service to include new items
in the collections. There's been many, many items that the
community has requested that we be able to recycle that we
have not been able to in the past that have been added. A
~-29-03 jcc
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
124
hundred percent participation from all of the schools in the
recycling program with the white paper program; that is a
tremendous amount of paper. In addition to that, we also
have three special collection days now that have been added
in addition to those we had previously, and two of those are
hazardous household products and paint. Y'all know that
that has been a problem, that in the past we only did it one
time a year. We now have additional days that we can
collect that.
In addition to that, the computer and TV
recycling has been addressed. The Computer Club of
Kerrville has been a tremendous aid in that. What they do
on those days is they actually show up and actually help
dismantle computers, take apart the pieces and take pieces
that actually continue to work, and provide and build
additional computers for those who need them. The other
thing that they have also done is started a program whereby
we can get them dismantled and get them out of there
quicker. As you may know, a cathode ray tube or a CRT or a
computer screen, you can't just throw it in the trash
because it does have hazardous waste. So, they've been able
to handle that as well.
One of the things that happened this last
year was extending the cover -- excuse me. One of the
programs that's being discussed for this next year is to
7-~'9-03 jc~
125
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
extend the cover for the area. Do you have a map in here?
Bet we didn't --
MR. BROOKS: No, unfortunately.
MR. PATTERSON: If you wouldn't mind, if
you'd look under Computer Recycling -- one, two -- the third
page, it shows you a diagram of what is being proposed for
this next year. And what you can see here is that there is
an area where, if you look on the far left, it says expand
current head cover to meet the existing concrete slab. That
area would allow additional covered area for collection.
The bottom line is, during the day it gets very hot out
there, and they hand-pick this stuff that they're taking
out. The other thing is, in inclement weather, they're able
to go ahead and process additional cars; they can pull them
underneath there. The other thing that is also in here is,
you'll see out to the right a blue area. It says new slab
on grade. This is one of the '02-'03 improvements that is
underway today, and one of the things that they -- the other
thing in the '02-'03, it says new exit for facility out to
the back out onto McFarland Drive.
One of the concerns that we've had is that,
right now, getting in and out on Schreiner Street is fairly
dangerous. There's not a light or a signal or stop sign
intersection there. So, the idea would be able to bring
them in and exit them on McFarland. This way, it will be a
~-~9-03 jcc
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
126
safer transition for those motorists who are using this. In
addition to that, you'll see, "Add overhead cover to newly
installed concrete drive." That's a proposed FY '03-'04
improvement. That is the thing you see up there that says,
"Extending cover over work area, $17,000." The other item
that you see for FY '03-'04 is the prefab building, which is
the small building in the back. This facility would be one
of the prefab buildings that you can buy. You know, now
that I think about it, I have an idea --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You've got one already.
MR. PATTERSON: We couldn't make Kyle's work,
so we'll just take his over there. That's $10,000. Hey,
okay. Anyway, we may make that work. If that all comes
together, we'll take Kyle's over there. Otherwise, they're
looking at about $10,000 to be able to put that facility
there to go in and completely dismantle the computers on a
regular basis, instead of just doing them twice a year. We
have a huge, pent-up demand for that. It's amazing to me
how often people are changing out computers, and continuing
to do so. The bottom line is -- is that the projected
operating expenses for FY '04 is at about a little over
$202,000. And then, adding the cost of the expansion of the
main customer lanes with a cover over, at a cost of $17,000,
which is that number, and a cost of a prefabricated building
of $10,000 estimate, which we have looked at on the map.
7-29-03 jcc
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
127
What that would be is -- is that if we split that half and
half, half of the $17,000, half of the $10,000, that would
be $13,500 each to be able to do that.
Right now, the center proceeds from
marketable collected items is budgeted at $18,000 for FY
'04, and it's up from the $12,000 you budgeted in FY '03. I
will tell you that commodity prices are actually down, all
right? What that's saying is -- is that the demand that we
feel that we can get -- in other words, the amount that we
would have to sell would go up enough to generate some
additional revenue. But the bottom line is -- is that, you
know, the -- the market's been soft. We haven't -- you
know, it doesn't sell well, all that kind of stuff. You
can't be in this business for the purpose of trying to make
money on recyclables; it doesn't work. Your goal has to be
waste reduction, and that is working, as you can see.
One of the things to tell you about real
quickly is that we have scrap metal. It used to be in piles
out back. It's now being stored in a 20-cubic-yard
dumpster. We're also now being able to take Styrofoam,
rechargeable batteries, ink, printer cartridges,
televisions, empty propane tanks less than 50 pounds, and
any telephone are now accepted, so those are the things that
we've been able to add in this last round of changes. We
also feel like that the scrap metal volume will continue to
7-''9-03 jcc
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
increase, and cardboard volume is expected to increase by
30 percent -- excuse me, to increase 30 percent, or add an
additional 60 tons in the next year. As I talked about,
too, we also added the hazardous waste household recycling
events, and recycling in that particular area is up by
20 percent. Twenty percent is a -- is a big number. And
we're also being able to process vehicles in a minute to --
to a minute and a half in that facility. It's amazing to me
that you can go by there on those days and you can watch the
cars line up. And they know, you know, when they're open,
and they line up. They take that stuff, they process it;
you're in and out in just a few minutes. They've done a
tremendous job -- we had a big problem with paint, things
like that, household hazardous waste, you know, spray cans,
all kinds of stuff, the computers and other things being
found in the landfill, and a lot of that has been reduced by
allowing for additional times and additional space to be
able to do that at this facility.
I have Paul Knippel here, who is the Public
Works Director. We have a person now, David Vasquez. You
may recall here just a couple years ago, we had a position
that was half airport, half solid waste and recycling. We
have enough business now in recycling and solid waste that
we have an individual who operates -- manages that and
reports to Paul. Unfortunately, he has been indisposed
~-?9 c3 ~C~
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
129
tonight, so he was not available, but Paul is very familiar
with this program and can answer any questions that you
might have. With that, I'll shut up and let you ask
questions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have a question,
Ron.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You talk about adding
some new services. I'm not certain when, but at some time
in the recent past, you discontinued handling crank case
oil, and I get calls from people who have ranches or large
farms; they have heavy equipment, not only their tractors,
but some road-type equipment, and they have no way of -- of
disposing of crank case oil. Why did we discontinue it, and
what would it take to get it back?
MR. PATTERSON: Paul?
MR. KNIPPEL: I don't know. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, that answers
that.
MR. KNIPPEL: I'll get you an answer back,
Commissioner, on that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've got two or
three questions; hope it won't take long. Could we look at
this revenue analysis page?
7-~9-03 jcc
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
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me say, first,
that I think this is a good community service, and I hear
some appreciation from citizens about this good service.
And second, after that statement, like the airport, I'd like
to see this to be self-funding. I don't know if that's
reasonable or not, but it would be a good thing. First
question is, what -- what's "Kerr County CRC, $4,500"?
MR. PATTERSON: That $4,500 represents the
amount that -- during the process last year, this very same
process, that we went through where we had asked for
participation last year. And I can tell you what that was
for if you would like me to.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's the amount
Kerr County government budgeted? Okay, that's good enough.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't want to --
MR. KNIPPEL: That was for the slab that --
this -- the next fiscal year, we're asking for a
participation on a cover that will go over the slab that we
built last year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's close enough.
$6,400 charges for services. Are these user fees, all of
them?
MR. PATTERSON: No, sir. Actually, like
7-~9-03 jcc
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
131
recycling center proceeds, those type things.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. PATTERSON: Those are going to be -- for
instance, that particular one is articles that we are
putting out that we're trying to sell in terms of articles.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: That are collected.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. The rest of
it --
MR. PATTERSON: But, lik
replacement bins. We provide the first
one, you have to buy that. That's what
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON:
amount of money that users pay? When I
center, you don't charge me?
MAYOR FINE: No.
e, bins, those are
one, but if you lose
that is, yes, sir.
What's the total
use the recycling
MR. BROOKS: Unless it's paid for by the
of $9.50?
MR. KNIPPEL: It's about $43 per ton tipping
fee at the landfill. Out of that comes $9.75 surcharge to
the City, and the rest of that goes back to B.F.I. and their
operations of the landfill. That $9.75 gets split up in
different areas with regard to the landfill. It goes to
7-29-G3 jcc
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
132
operations, it goes to a post-closure fund. Out of the
operations portion of that $9.75 comes the operation of the
recycling center.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm ignorant about
this particular operation, and I don't want to take up your
time on it. I'll talk to Paul sometime. Thank you.
MAYOR FINE: I got a quick question.
MR. PATTERSON: He'll have Mr. Vasquez there.
MAYOR FINE: We've got a lot of friends out
in west Kerr County, and some of them recycle, some of them
don't. Main reason is 'cause they don't come to town all
that often, to where, you know, when they do come, usually
they don't bring their recyclables in with them. But
several of them have asked me about the possibility of
doing, like, a one-day-a-week pickup in Hunt or something
like that; having, like, a --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Maybe we could use
that library truck. (Laughter.)
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, there you go. And not
someplace where people can dump all the time, but have,
like, a truck on-site one day a week.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Take books out, take
trash back?
MAYOR FINE: There you go. That would work.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's synergy.
-~9-G3 jcc
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
133
But --
MAYOR FINE: Something along that line. You
don't want a site where people are just going to drop stuff
off. It would become one day a week, have a truck out there
for a couple-three hours. A lot of them said they would do
that; they just didn't want to take vehicles to town with
them. And it's just -- I promised I would bring it up,
so --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a good idea.
I think one on the west end, one in the far east.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: East, too.
MAYOR FINE: Just one day a week, maybe a
half a day, whatever. People know they can bring their
stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because there are a lot
of people that would -- I think would use it to dispose of
hazardous stuff, but they're just not going -- it's hard for
them to get the stuff into Kerrville.
MR. BROWN: If they could take crank case
oil, they'd really be happy.
MAYOR FINE: Well, a lot of these people
have, like, glass and tin. Even if they burn their trash,
the glass isn't going to burn, so they could bring the trash
in at the drop site, things like that, 'cause a lot of them
are going the burn trash anyway, the paper stuff. So -- but
7-~9-G3 jcc
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
134
it's just something that -- you know, to take a look at. I
don't know if it would have to be run -- run through B.F.I.
or something that --
MR. PATTERSON: The -- this is an ignorance
question. Out in the county, who provides the pickup
service?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: B.F.I., majority.
There's some private ones, but B.F.I. is the main --
MR. PATTERSON: B.F.I., are they not
providing any recycling services?
MAYOR FINE: Not in the county.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
MAYOR FINE: That's a separate contract. We
just -- we just do the contract with them in the city
limits. I don't know who they actually contract with in the
county. Do y'all? Individuals or individual people?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Individual landowners.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Used to be a little
outfit out of Mountain Home.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: B.F.I. bought out
two of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Junior Fritz just
started one of his own.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's commercial, I think, for
7-~9-03 jcc
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
135
dumpsters.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pretty much
commercial.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But both of them -- I
mean, most of the small ones get going and B.F.I. buys them.
That's what has happened out in the county.
MR. PATTERSON: I just didn't know if they
had that available. Sometimes they'll provide a package;
you can get recycling and all that kind of stuff. I just
didn't know.
MAYOR FINE: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the cost on
the blue bins if the County wasn't to acquire them?
MR. PATTERSON: How much is each bin? It's
$5?
MS. SEKULA: $5.
MR. PATTERSON: For the replacement cost?
MS. SEKULA: For a bin.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, okay. Like, if you
want two, you got to pay 5 bucks to get an extra one, $5 to
replace one. They're not overly expensive.
MR. HOWARD: Ron, the $17,000 for the cover,
does that include both sides?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. It finishes the
project.

1
-- 2
3
4
5
G
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
136
MR. HOWARD: Right. The one over the main
drive covers the slab on the other side?
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir.
MR. HOWARD: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Go back to that, yes.
MR. BROWN: If we can use Kyle's building,
that $10,000 will be reduced?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Actually, I don't
know why I hadn't thcught of it till just standing here.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right now, I can tell you he's
already got plans for that thing, to put the Homeland
Security equipment in it.
MR. BROWN: Shouldn't have gone home.
MR. DICKERSON: Well, if he doesn't keep it,
I want it for the same reason. (Laughter.) I'll tell him
you want it for that, and I'll take it.
MR. PATTERSON: We'll see. Yes, sir?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Patterson, these expenses
at the Community Recycling Center, shouldn't they be
controlled by the lease agreement to the extent that the
lease agreement provides for them?
MR. PATTERSON: The lease agreement, quite
frankly, there -- there's certain of these things that need
to be rewritten. This particular item, where it talks about
-- let's see if I can pull it out. The lease agreement
7-~9-U3 jcc
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
137
right now talks about the provision of leasing land for, you
know, a certain amount. And -- but then it was amended in
'96 where there was a specific project that was set up, and
it was for -- there was a $5,000 project where the -- the
City and the County came to agreement where they would be
open more hours, certain things would be done. But the
lease agreement right now, basically as it's extended now,
is just for the lease. It does not contemplate this, and it
doesn't contemplate what we did last year either.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, does it not make
provision for it? The lease term was extended, but
otherwise, all the terms and conditions of the original
lease agreement, which I believe was a '94 lease
agreement --
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, I believe.
JUDGE TINLEY: Excuse me, '95 lease agreement
to '99. Then it was extended through 2004, but that lease
agreement provides that maintenance, alterations, and
improvements should be borne by the lessee under the terms
of that lease, if I'm reading it correctly.
MR. PATTERSON: That is correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Wouldn't that --
MR. PATTERSON: And then in, I think, '96,
there was some contemplation of a payment by the County of
$5,000, and then the City agrees to do certain things, like
7 ~9-03 jcc
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
138
hire additional personnel to operate the center for more
hours, extend the number of hours by December '96. City
would still be responsible for operation, et cetera. Let's
see. But -- but that particular item does not -- I don't
know if this replaces this, or if it's just --
JUDGE TINLEY: That terminated on
September 30th.
MR. PATTERSON: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: The copy I have is correct, of
'97?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. So -- and then in
'97 as well, there was an amendment which actually reduced
the land area that was being leased, because it appears as
though the 216th Task Force used to have something there.
Do you know about that?
MR. DICKERSON: Stored vehicles, I guess.
MR. PATTERSON: It was a facility, but
anyway, that's been removed. Then -- then the rest of it
just is extensions of the contract.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. PATTERSON: But, as I said, that -- the
last amendment was --
MAYOR FINE: What is it we're looking at?
MR. PATTERSON: Looks like it's '99. But --
JUDGE TINLEY: That was the one they extended
-?9-C3 cc
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
139
through 2004, I think.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct. And that's
the last thing that was done.
MAYOR FINE: I thought we were all
responsible for improvements.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It says -- I mean, City's
responsible -- from what the Judge was saying, the City's
responsible for it under the current terms. What needs to
be done, then, regardless -- it may have been done wrong in
the past, but if the County's going to pay anything, a new
agreement needs to be worked out.
MR. PATTERSON: I would agree, it needs to be
rewritten if we're going to do this.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We'd rather have the
City just go ahead and pay for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, I like -- if they
pay for it, leave it the same agreement. (Laughter.)
MR. SMITH: It's a 5-5 vote.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It would be 5-O at our
place.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, I can --
MR. HOWARD: We have the same thing.
MAYOR FINE: Same thing over here.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I wanted to ask the
question a while ago, this prefab building, the proposed
7-^_9-03 jcc
140
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
prefab building, it seemed to me that that -- that part of
the property had been set aside for some other reason some
years back. I -- for some reason, it just -- it just
triggered a thought that we had done something separate with
that particular piece of property, and it may have been the
task force.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. It -- I got it
here; let me find it for you real quick.
MAYOR FINE: The task force at one time had
something on this -- kind of the north side back there where
this other gate is back here.
MR. PATTERSON: It says, Whereas, County had
previously maintained a storage building within the fenced
area of the property described in the lease agreement for
use by the 216th Judicial District Community Service
Program, as it was called then. Whereas, County has
relocated said storage building on an adjacent area of the
property leased to City; and whereas, City and County find
it to the mutual benefit to release -- release from the
lease agreement the property on which County's buildings are
now located. And then it describes that area. It was 1
point -- no, it's a piece of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't think it was
24 the task force.
25
MR. PATTERSON: .13 acres.
?-~9-G3 jcc
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
141
MAYOR FINE: Wasn't it fenced at one time?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes.
MAYOR FINE: That fence was taken down.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MAYOR FINE: But that's where they used to
store --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just don't think it
was the drug task force; I think it was somebody else.
JUDGE TINLEY: It was the task force.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Was it really?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it's right here.
MS. BAILEY: Probation. That's 216th
Community Service.
JUDGE TINLEY: Community Service, excuse me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Community Service,
that's who it was, yes. 'Cause they had tractors and
lawnmowers and --
JUDGE TINLEY: 216th --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's exactly right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- Community Service, yeah.
13 hundredths of an acre apparently was lopped off of that
1.43 acres.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So we need to redraw
the agreement. Who's going to do it? Let's do it.
MAYOR FINE: The current agreement lease is
-~9-03 jcc
142
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
expired?
JUDGE TINLEY: No, it goes through 2004.
MAYOR FINE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends on what the City
wants us to help pay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't have a co-pay
provision.
MR. HOWARD: No, you look at it as a
fifty-fifty grant match.
MR. PATTERSON: So, want to us work on that?
MAYOR FINE: Yeah.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: What? A new agreement, or
paying it?
MR. PATTERSON: Either one.
JUDGE TINLEY: The Tatter's my preference,
obviously.
MAYOR FINE: Oh, us pay? I thought you meant
you paying it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now my question would
be --
JUDGE TINLEY: You're the ones doing the work
on it, remember?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My question would be,
who needs to do -- who needs to redraw the agreement?
7-~9-03 jcc
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
143
MS. BAILEY: My hourly rate is very low.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if we're going to
redraw the agreement and put some clause provisions there
for it being a joint operation, I think the joint operation
needs to be based on usage, like we do with kind of Animal
Control and some other things, and I don't think it's
fifty-fifty with usage right now. I think -- I don't know
what it is; 60/40 on special days, it appears, but I'm not
sure what the daily usage is.
MS. BAILEY: I'm not sure that they keep
track of that, no. 'Cause I use it on a regular basis, and
I've never had anyone asking me --
MR. PATTERSON: The ratio of residents'
participation, special collection events. So, its not
daily; this is just the special events is about 40 percent
county and 60 percent city. What it is on a day-to-day
basis, I don't know if they keep that.
MS. BAILEY: They don't.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, just something
that -- I mean, maybe we'll -- maybe it will be fifty-fifty
we decide upon, but most of these agreements, they're done
on usage.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay.
MAYOR FINE: Well, if the County gets the key
someday, maybe you have to just go up a little bit.
7-~y-U3 jcc
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
144
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When we get to use the
library bus to pick up stuff in Center Point and Hunt.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah. That's -- that works.
Library bus doesn't do much right now, does it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pick up recycling on
MR. PATTERSON: So the direction I'm being
given is? I'm getting
MAYOR FINE: Yeah, draw up a new agreement --
lease, and leave blank the participation.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay, I will.
MAYOR FINE: I think if we're talking about a
whole lot more money, it might be worth really arguing
about.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, I mean, the other
option is we -- if the City or the County -- I mean, if
neither one wants to do this particular thing, we just stop
right here. I mean, that's part of the -- part of the
discussion of, is this worth doing? So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's a fairly
worthwhile center to have, and if improvements, you know,
are warranted or needed, I think, you know, we ought to
figure out how to do them.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. All-righty.
MR. KNIPPEL: I'll throw in one more thing
?-~9-G3 jcc
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
145
here, too. David Vasquez has relayed to me that this is all
he foresees in terms of expansion out there for the next
couple years. This -- I'd be careful to say that we'll
never come back and want to expand it further, but this is
sort of it for the time being. Unlike the airport, we've
got stuff we're looking at. For growth in 'O5, '06, and
'07, we have a pretty good plan in place. The recycle
center is -- we're about maxing out on our benefit return at
that facility, for what that information is worth. This --
these improvements give us two entrances and exits in and
out of the facility, which helps. We'll be able to take
some of the commercial uses we'll just acquire through a 100
percent grant from -- I think it was 100 percent or 90/10
from AACOG, a new baler, very large commercial-grade baler,
where we take large pieces of cardboard and -- and that will
be serviced by the slab that's in place and by the
overhead -- the new cover. And we'll be able to take some
of the heavier users and divert them to the other side of
the building, and free up the other lanes for just household
stuff. But, anyway, that's kind of a round picture a little
bit.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When do you think that
the City budget will come together?
~-~9-03 ~cc
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
146
MR. PATTERSON: I wish it had been a month
ago.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sometime this year?
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. No, actually, we
have a meeting scheduled right now to present the draft
budget for Council consideration on August --
MS. SEKULA: 11.
MR. PATTERSON: -- 11.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And all these figures
are built in it?
MR. PATTERSON: Actually, the -- all of the
figures -- well, like, for instance, the discussion we had
about moving the airport number over to -- I mean, the
Airport Manager over into that fund.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: That number is not in there
right now.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: Because I didn't want to
presume. But we have those numbers; they're available, and
yes, we would propose to put these numbers in there and we
would like to be able to do that. Part of what the goal
tonight would be is to get some direction on, you know,
these look good, these don't look good. Now, I know y'all
may need some more discussion, that type thing.

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
147
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. PATTERSON: But before that August 11th
meeting, we would need some idea of which ones we want to go
with, which ones we don't, those kinds of things.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We may not do any of
it, but -- I mean, as long as you understand that, that
we -- that we still have some discussions to have.
MR. PATTERSON: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. PATTERSON: And bottom line is -- is that
we'll -- as you said, those decisions will have to be made,
and then we'll, you know, have to respond accordingly.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ten-four.
MR. PATTERSON: Next? Okay. Thanks, Paul.
Library. Right now, you can see that FY '02, we had 158,000
visitors and circulated over 195,000 items. Phase I of the
History Center has now been completed. That opened
January 27th, 2003. This was a $532,000 project which was
funded via grants and city participation, and operational
expenses right now are being funded via grants that have
been received. The other thing that we have here is -- is
that the library A.D.A. improvements have been completed.
This was a $308,650 project, with the City and County each
funding $40,000 toward that $308,000 project, and E.I.C.
funding $228,650. What this project was designed to do
~-~9-03 ~cc
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
148
specifically, the intent was, before trying to do any
expansion to the library, was to insure that the library as
it stood was A.D.A.-compliant. I will tell you -- I'm going
to stop right here and tell you that we have been approached
by the Friends of the Library, who have asked us about
accepting -- and, you know, again, this is something for
y'all to consider -- accepting a grant from them of -- how
much is it?
MR. MARTINEZ: $10,000.
MR. PATTERSON: $10,000 to do an assessment
on perhaps enclosing the balcony areas; in other words,
instead of trying to protrude out of the building. But
right now you've got a lower and upper balcony area that are
just wasted space; nobody ever uses them. If you could
enclose that space, that becomes additional floor area for
books and shelving, and that is something that they want to
do, is come and bring that and ask if we would accept that
gift to be able to look and do that study to determine what
it would take to do that. In addition to that, we have here
the County Outreach Program, as it's been called, the van
program, whatever you want to call. it. This program, it
basically runs approximately five days a week. Once-a-week
stops are made at Mountain Home Post Office, American Legion
Post at Center Point, the Hunt Store, the Hill Country Arts
Foundation at Ingram, the Mini-Mart on Highway 16 in Turtle
-~9-03 ~cc
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
149
Creek area, and Camp Verde Store. As of May 31st, '03, 102
personal contacts were made at these locations to promote
the service. However, 11 persons have requested 42 items,
and had them delivered to them, and three new library cards
were issued as part of that process. That was a program
that was begun last year -- or actually this year, I should
say.
MAYOR FINE: How much is that van worth?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It is now a
trash-hauling van.
MR. PATTERSON: The van was purchased via
a -- a grant from the Friends of the Library. It was -- I
think it was $20,000? 21?
MR. MARTINEZ: 21?
MR. PATTERSON: $21,000. That's there, and
then we have an ongoing operational cost of a little over
$13,000 a year to keep that going. In addition to that,
this year we have an automated library system replacement.
There was -- $60,000 is shared by the City and the County
costs; that was to be used for the system replacement of the
$150,000 participation in the Community Network Grant. That
project is -- is underway, and I'll let Antonio speak to
that in a little bit more detail, should you wish. Again,
that -- that program is underway as well. Right now, you'll
see that, with the proposed budget, it's at 851,375 which
-29-03 jcc
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
150
is -- there is no projected increase in contribution by the
City or the County, with a fifty-fifty share in this budget.
Any questions? Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the outreach program,
Antonio, is it a -- is it going to improve? Or is it a good
idea to --
MR. MARTINEZ: I don't foresee that it's
going to increase dramatically, at least not in the next
five years. Now, I would anticipate small increases, but,
you know, that's about what it's going to do.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: By my calculations,
an alternative to that would be to buy the books online and
ship them Fed Ex to the person who's requesting them, and it
would cost less. I see this as a very extravagant program.
MR. MARTINEZ: I wouldn't disagree with your
analysis.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It puts into -- this
extravagant program puts into question the -- the whole
library cost. It's one of the very large-cost items in our
budget. We have a $97,000 --
MR. PATTERSON: One of the points that was
made when this was being discussed was the fact that, with
the online services that are available today, reservations
can be made online, you know, those type things, as well as
inter-loan library -- inter-library loans can also be made
7-29-03 jcc
151
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
online and via phone. Am I correct?
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: So, even if you just have a
phone, you can do it as well.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I agree it's
not cost-effective. We propose to take back to -- a little
bit later, taking it back to what's out there. The number
of clients it has attracted, certainly that $13,000
expenditure is not cost-effective, but I continue to wonder
aloud, has it been promoted to the extent that it needs to
be promoted to do that? And I think the number of people
who use either this service or the library is a question
that has to be examined very carefully. The library as we
know it today has tremendous use. It has -- it has the
volume of use for a library in square footage twice its
size. And I think it's a major question that's going to
have to be addressed as to what we're going to do with that
facility and whether or not enclosing the balcony is a
sufficient answer. I really don't know, because it
generates a lot -- a lot of traffic. And, certainly, that
$13,000 that we've spent hasn't taken any pressure off the
library; that's for certain.
MR. PATTERSON: No.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But if it's to be
discontinued, it can be discontinued, but I don't think it's
7-29-G3 jcc
152
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
been promoted to the extent that it has -- that it could
have been or should be to generate the kind of traffic that
it should get.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, I mean, we will be glad
to go back and do some -- you know, some additional
advertising and additional locations, and also would be very
open to suggestions as well.
MR. MARTINEZ: May I summarize what we've
done?
MR. PATTERSON: Sure.
MR. MARTINEZ: We did two complete rounds of
newspaper stories to -- about three months apart. We have
gone to every business establishment in the area and
blanketed every business with brochures and posters. The
Library Advisory Board took it upon themselves to take out
about, oh, 50 brochures also that they handed to different
areas. And we have handed out about 200 handouts at the
library itself. It's also posted on our web site, and we've
also called by telephone every person that has contacted us
and done follow-up with every single one of them. So,
that's the extent of advertising we've done on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I tend to agree with
Commissioner Nicholson. I mean, I think, with the other
options available today, and the way people travel, I just
don't think it's a necessary -- since dollars are as tight

153
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
as they are, I think the program can be cut.
MR. MARTINEZ: One other thing I will point
out, that the figures that you heard quoted, that only
addresses how many books people ask for. There are numerous
other services we provide. Ron mentioned inter-library
loan, and also just reference questions over the phone or
photocopy pages, or any other variety of services that might
have occurred that would not be a part of this column.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And also, if you could
briefly address or speak about the automated library system
replacement, what that project means?
MR. MARTINEZ: That is to completely replace
the current system, which dates back to the '70's and is in
the process of being completely dropped by the vendor. That
system is not viable for the future. It will not be
upgraded; it will not be improved in any shape or form, and
will -- in the very near future, will be dropped by the
vendor.
MR. PATTERSON: So, you know that the system
that we have in place today is one that has been used by a
lot of libraries around, but as he said, it's being phased
out by the company, won't be supported any more, so
unfortunately there's a lot --
MR. MARTINEZ: It's what you would call a
DOS-based system, and there are no DOS-based systems out
.-~9-v3 cc
154
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
there in library land anywhere any more. Or in any other
government agencies, for that matter.
MR. PATTERSON: That's only in our dispatch.
MR. DICKERSON: That you talked about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The 30,000 City and
County, is that included in the 287,000?
MR. MARTINEZ: Actually, that would be a
carry-over from last year's budget, so it would not be part
of the current split.
MR. PATTERSON: That was from, actually, the
year prior to -- the grant took longer to come to fruition
than we thought it would.
MR. MARTINEZ: What happened is the
automation marketplace changed dramatically. We had a draft
proposal ready to go to take to vendors, and then we had
several companies merge, and so several companies completely
disappeared from the marketplace. I think it's going to
work out to our advantage, but we've had to redo what we're
presenting to the vendors, so we're at that stage of
preparing a second round.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the 30 -- but the
30,000 already -- you already have the money?
MR. MARTINEZ: It's in the budget.
MR. PATTERSON: It's already there.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a similar
7-29-03 jcc
155
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
question; my kind of annual, standard question. I remember
several years ago, we budgeted for a new elevator, and it
took us a couple of years to actually get the thing
installed. Is it installed?
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. Installed,
operational, inspected, everything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I don't know if
septic tanks or that elevator's going to put me in my grave,
but it's going to be one of the two. But my question --
septic tanks. My question is, the -- and it seems like that
our share of the elevator was 30 grand, maybe, or something
like that. I can't remember; somewhere around there. But
my question is, once we spent the money and installed the
elevator, did that 30 grand come out of the budget?
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It did?
MR. MARTINEZ: It was not charged back to the
County again, if that's your question.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is exactly my
question.
MR. PATTERSON: The way we do -- so you
understand, the way we do our budget is all capital items
show up as a one-time expense.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fantastic.
MR. PATTERSON: And then that dollar -- then
7-~9-03 jcc
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
156
that dollar amount rolls into a pro -- what we call project
accounting; it's pulled out. Goes into the project
accounting. That number is locked until it's spent, but it
does not roll back into the base budget.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fabulous. Thank you
very much.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, very welcome.
Other questions? Okay.
MAYOR FINE: I guess I got one thing. Are we
all kind of in agreement about the -- the County Outreach
Program? Or --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Far as I'm concerned,
if you can't promote to it a greater extent and make it
happen, take it out.
MAYOR FINE: Well, you may not be able to
make it happen no matter how much you promote it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be. Take it
out.
MR. BROWN: I would say if that's the
conclusion we're going to reach, then we need to make a
subsequent decision; i.e., what do we do with that van that
the Friends of the Library funded? And -- and that
operation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How much trash bags
-29-03 ~cc
157
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
will it hold?
MAYOR FINE: It'll hold a lot of bottles.
MR. BROWN: I'm not saying where it ought to
go, but I'm saying --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it's up to them,
really.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, there's a good
possibility they could use it, because they do book sales,
all sorts of things like that.
MR. BROWN: Maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Turn it back to them;
they gave it. I would think --
MAYOR FINE: I guess we need to --
MR. TUNE: That's the only vehicle the
library has. They have no other vehicles for any other use
that they have.
MAYOR FINE: So, I guess we would need to
talk to them about that.
MR. BROWN: Whatever.
MAYOR FINE: They may not have a need for it.
MR. MARTINEZ: It wasn't a Friends
contribution. It was a variety of other contributions.
MR. BROWN: Well, whoever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MAYOR FINE: No need to talk about --
--~9-03 jcc
158
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The funds probably should
go into the library at some point, if it's sold, something
like that. It should -- ought to stay with library fund;
that's what it was donated for.
MR. BROWN: If the Friends got a use for it,
we could transfer some funds or something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: That's -- we'll go --
MAYOR FINE: We'll find a use.
MR. PATTERSON: I will find out exactly what
all was contributed to it. We'll go from there, how it
should be handled.
MR. SMITH: It's -- are any libraries
anywhere self-supporting?
MR. PATTERSON: None that I know of, sir.
MR. SMITH: Just some -- okay. It's just a
public service.
MR. PATTERSON: Any questions? Quite
frankly, when you look at libraries, parks and recreation,
things like that, in the city managers' circles, there is
this thing that they call unfunded mandatory services. And
so -- or I should say non self-supporting mandatory
services. Parks and recreation, libraries, those kinds of
things.
MR. SMITH: Just wondering.
?-?9-03 jcc
159
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Next item is Animal
Control. Pups and cats. This is an item that is managed by
the County with the contract with the City for provision of
services. Under this, the County provides and oversees the
Animal Control service, and the City contracts with the
County for such services on a formula basis, and the formula
basis is somewhat complicated. But the bottom line is that
this is for proration of all of those services. At this
point in time, there is a -- there is a request that there
be an increase to this of about $7,500. So -- excuse me,
$4,500. And, basically, the City would be at -- Animal
Control, total of $202,000, and that would be a County share
of about 127, with the City at $75,788 would be our total
cost, based on that formula.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ron, would you run
those numbers one more time, please?
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. What we have is an
estimate. And, again, we were kind of shooting at a target
here a little bit, but what the total budget is on that, I'm
not -- I'm not for sure what the County request is, to be
quite frank with you, totally. I think -- yes, I am; it's
right here. It is --
JUDGE TINLEY: 199.
MR. PATTERSON: That number, right"?
MR. BROWN: 202,000?
-29-C3 jcc
160
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.
We may have a bust
spreadsheet are co
spreadsheet, let's
spreadsheet, these
Control.
PATTERSON: No, that's showing 199,928.
here. Okay. I think the numbers on the
rrect. If you would look at this
get that one. If you'll look on this
numbers are correct with regard to Animal
MR. BROOKS: They're also correct in this
section as well.
MR. PATTERSON: And it's correct in the book
behind Tab 10. The slide is just -- we missed it on the
slide. The Animal Control contract that you can see, it
shows that the County has a projected cost of $124,140.
That's a $7,500 increase over last year for them. And then
there's a $75,788 number for FY '04 for the City, which is a
$4,500 increase there. And that totals the bottom -- down
at the bottom, FY '04, the projected budget of $199,928,
which is what we have reflected on the County spreadsheet.
That formula basis is pretty interesting, too, with regard
to -- it basically works out where, if Animal Control has
calculated that 40 percent of that contract is allocated to
the City, then there is the Animal Shelter itself, and then
you've been -- basically, 40 percent of the Animal Shelter,
less city sewer and water line contract. That's actually on
the second page of -- there's a summary sheet that says
Animal Control. Then right behind it says Kerr County
-29-C3 jcr_
161
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
Animal Control budget '03-'04, and that's what was submitted
to us by the staff over at the Animal Control facility.
MR. HOWARD: Ron, is that 40 percent based on
usage, or how was that -- how does that come about? Someone
from the County might be able to answer that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I believe originally, it
was usage.
MR.	DICKERSON:	When	the contract	was	first
done, that's what	it went by.	The	formula first	came	up
with --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I believe the
current data is kind of a mirror -- flip-flop of that.
About 60 percent of the activity is in the city limits, and
about 40 percent in the county. I don't know if there's
other factors to be considered there or not.
MAYOR FINE: I think there would be other
factors involved.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We've been talking
quite a bit at the -- at the Commissioners Court level and
with the Animal Control and vets and other people, and it's
unanimous, about ways to do a better job of that and be more
cost-effective. And there are some ideas there that have
got -- that have some good possibilities that we can
increase revenues. And it's sort of a philosophical
discussion right now. Should it be sort of a user pays --
7-~9-03 jcc
162
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
should we make a major effort to enroll more people in
registering their dogs? I think our current compliance with
the law right now is probably less than 10 percent, maybe
only 5 percent. So, there are some possibilities about
increasing the revenues for Animal Control. It's one of
those things I -- I think could never be self-funded, but
you might make some major improvements in the amount of
revenues coming in from fees.
MR. BROWN: If you were tougher on your
enforcements, then revenues would go up.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, two things.
One, our fee schedule is probably out-of-date. We did some
surveys; we're probably on the low end, probably the lowest
on the fees. And there's various ramifications of that. If
you raise your fees, do you get less compliance? We don't
know. But, certainly, we don't have a high rate of
compliance. It's almost like if that's the best compliance
you can get, do you need the law?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My only question is,
Chief, do you get more complaints. Or, you know, how -- how
are things between --
MR. DICKERSON: They're great. We get very
little complaints any more. I did get a complaint today,
but it was from somebody that lives in Ingram, and it was an
Ingram city problem, so -- so I called them.
-29-03 jcc
163
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 BALDWIN: Ingram calls you too?
MR. DICKERSON: Well, yeah, just depending --
depends on -- everybody likes to call the Chief of Police.
I guess they don't know there's a marshal there in Ingram.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can I get his home
number, please?
MR. DICKERSON: But, no, the Animal Control
has really been doing a great job.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
MR. DICKERSON: We don't have near the
complaints we used to have.
good news.
good night.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good deal. That's
MR. DICKERSON: Yeah. With that, I'll say
JUDGE TINLEY: Better hang around. We may
put that building in somebody else's lap.
MR. DICKERSON: Fire Chief won't let me have
it anyway, probably.
MR. PATTERSON: Neither one of you are going
to get it. (Laughter.) Are there any other questions on
that item? Okay. The next item is for tax collection.
Currently, the proposed budget that we received was
approximately $588,919 total for the budget, the County's
share of that being $525,013; the City's share, $63,906.
7-~9-G3 jcc
164
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
These figures that -- the 525, don't reflect if there is any
offset from -- from other agencies for collection or for --
you know, and, again, this is an estimate, 'cause y'all
haven't set your budget yet. This is what we understand is
being requested. The backup data here, the County Tax
Collector provides all billing/collection services for the
County and the City. Contribution level depends on total
property collections and values. 1 percent of the total
collection is retained for tax collection services. So,
basically, its 1 percent of whatever is collected is paid.
Pretty simple. If there's any questions? That concludes
the formal part. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to go
back -- I forgot to make a mention to everybody with regard
to the library contract.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there are
some things in here that need to be addressed, and it too
needs to be brought up to speed.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There is some
language in it that I think needs to be looked at,
particularly in terms of Paragraph 4, how it depicts the
membership and the makeup of the board. I think it needs to
be brought up to date. Paragraphs 5 and 6 need to be
?-~9-03 jcc
165
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
addressed in terms of just the very process that we're in
right now, the budget process. That is long out-of-date.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, it is.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And so I think that
would be one we need to take a look at also.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay. I'm sorry, I got 5 and
6. What was the other one? Number 4?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 4. 4, 5 and 6.
MR. PATTERSON: Also, Commissioner Williams
had mentioned to me -- and that's something I failed to say
on the airport issue as well, and that was the fact that
there -- there had been some discussion when we were talking
about the makeup of the Airport Board and the possibility
of, you know, having these additional authorities and also,
you know, doing the interlocal agreement, et cetera. One of
the options that was discussed was expanding that board from
its current membership of five to seven, and having one
member be a Commissioner and another member be a
Councilmember, and that was something that was discussed.
It sort of addresses part of what you were talking about
with regard to elected officials and get some of theme
seated at the table. So, that's something --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They would be voting
members of the board.
MR. PATTERSON: That's correct, sir. Instead

166
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
of ex-officio's. Sorry, I had to get an alibi there. That
concludes the formal agendized items with regard to those
items that we're currently participating in. On the agenda,
there are a couple of items for further discussion. I --
you know, with the hour, I don't know if you want to discuss
those now or have another joint meeting, or go ahead and
press on. Do you want me to press on? I can open them up
for discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Press on.
MAYOR FINE: Press on.
MR. PATTERSON: Press on, okay. One of the
issues is that something that we had discussed actually two
years ago, about the potential of possibly utilizing or
doing something joint venture cn our Municipal Court. At
that point in time, the discussion was, well, perhaps we
could take our Municipal Court and somehow blend it with the
County Court so that, you know, we're more efficient, you
know, those types of things. Quite frankly, in our court,
we're out of space. We run into problems all the time with
the number of defendants, et cetera, people in the court.
At that time a couple years ago when this discussion was
brought forward, it was revolving around the concept of
combining the courts and those type things. What we ran
into in that analysis was the jurisdictional issues, you
know, municipal judges versus county judges, et cetera. All
~-'9-G3 jcc
167
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
kinds of legal issues.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Probably
constitutional issues.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Yes, sir. So
we're not sure that we can get over that hump, if we ever
could. With that said, one of the things -- additional
thoughts that has come up since then was just the -- the
general idea of -- I know that the Court has, you know, now
got a beautiful new building, courtroom space, that type
thing. One of the things that we didn't know if the
Commissioners would even entertain was, you know, some sort
of an arrangement where, if we could go into and lease some
space for specified periods of time, to use the courtrooms
during our court periods. How often do we -- do we meet
right now? Is it every two weeks?
MR. HAYES: Day and a half every two weeks.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. So, about a day and a
half every two weeks, so that's a couple times a month. And
so it's really about three days total over -- over a month,
and it's something that -- you know, again, there's no
formal proposal for you or anything. We really didn't want
to go any further until we just threw the idea out to see if
it was something even reasonable. What that would mean
is -- is that, you know, staff would go in, judge would sit.
You know, the court staff that are -- we have now would
-_'9-G3 jcc
168
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
still support that judge, and then leave. There would be no
support staff required or anything else. Just space.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, that's -- that
sounds good.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That sounds very workable
to me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just -- you know,
it's a silly question, but can a city function -- I guess,
can a city office function in the county facility? Well,
they -- you do all the time; I've seen you over there doing
that. Sure, I think that would be a good one.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, there's the
courtroom in the jail, which I don't know the -- Bill may
know how much that's used by J.P. 2.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think she regularly
uses it on Monday. But there may be -- there may be space
available and time available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But that's a large
courtroom.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's a good looking
courtroom in the -- it belongs to J.P. 2.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, in the law
enforcement facility.
MR. HAYES: We've actually used that
courtroom a couple times when we've had incarcerated
~-~9-03 jcc
169
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
defendants -- tried them.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.
MS. BAILEY: Ron, one of the considerations
to -- to keep in mind is that a lot of times, particularly
juvenile court goes substantially after 5 o'clock, and one
of the problems I foresee with utilizing the main courthouse
is that it does -- it does close at some point. So, that
might be a consideration.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, and again, I had
thought about that, that -- you know, if some sort of an
arrangement were made, that perhaps there's, you know,
someone at that hour to lock the building, or whether -- you
know, and, again, use one entrance instead of all of them.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Custodial staff on
duty.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have staff there.
MR. PATTERSON: Some way to resolve that,
whether it's the main courts or court or whatever. The
bottom line is -- is I'm just throwing something out on the
table to discuss and say that we'd be open to, you know,
just discussing pretty much any option, if -- if y'all are.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree we ought to
talk about it.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The possibility.
~-29-03 ~cc
170
1
,...,. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
,..... 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
.,-..
25
MR. PATTERSON: All right. We will -- we'll
sit down, think through, look at our schedule and that kind
of stuff, 'cause we'd have to make sure we didn't interfere
with any of the court schedules, obviously.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have -- you know,
we have the two big courtrooms in the district courts, we
have our courtroom, there's Judge Brown's courtroom, the one
out at the jail, and we have court coordinators that
schedule those rooms, and they're not full all the time. I
bet they could -- I bet that's a workable deal, if you can
work around the guy here. Use ours.
MR. PATTERSON: Okay, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's better than the
original proposal, I can tell you that.
MR. PATTERSON: It's a lot simpler, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Don't have the legal issues
that you potentially have to get resolved.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. And we were never
going to get there. I mean, we figured that out pretty
quick. So, okay. Well, what I will do is, you know, we'll
try and put something together, sit down and talk -- and
I'll contact the Judge and see, you know, what we might be
able to do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I probably should keep my

171
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
mouth shut, but we probably have, at least on a short-term,
medium term, space in the -- in the annex that's unfinished.
If he needed a -- you know, any kind of a small office or
something, there's probably room in there in the courthouse
annex.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He is going too far.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just strike all of
that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm trying to get them
to -- I figure they'll finish out the space for us, then
we'll get it back in a few years.
JUDGE TINLEY: As a matter of fact, down in
that one storage area, there's the old district court bench.
It's disassembled, but it's down there.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. PATTERSON: I'm sorry, sir? What was
that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Down in one of our
climate-controlled storage areas, the old district court
bench, the reporter and witness area and clerk area, it's
disassembled, but it's down there. We've still got that
intact. And the jury screen, the whole thing basically.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're prevented by
Historical Commission from getting rid of it. We didn't
7-~9-03 -jcc
172
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
want to anyway, but we were prevented from doing it if we
did want to.
MR. PATTERSON: Understood. Okay. Well,
we'll -- you know, again, because I'm not intimately
familiar with what's available, what's not, what -- and
actually even what our demand numbers would be in terms of
how many people and that kind of stuff, we'll do all that
homework before we come back, okay? Last item that's on the
agenda is application/administration of Subdivision Rules
and Regulations within ETJ of the city of Kerrville. This
was an item that the Commissioners had requested to be put
on there, and so I'm not prepared to speak to it. I thought
if y'all could bring that forward, I do have our -- our
Interim Planning Division Manager here. We have discussed
this issue, and -- you know, but I thought perhaps I'd put
it on the table.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was -- I asked that it
be put on the agenda, and the reason was, at our last
meeting we discussed this, and more in reference to the new
law that requires cities and counties to have one set of
rules in the ETJ. When we discussed -- I think it was last
year, when we first discussed it, the City was going through
their long-range planning and rewriting their rules, and it
was kind of put on semi-hold until that was done. And also,
I believe there was new legislation that has also postponed
-~9-G3 jcc
173
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 deadline for making us implement it, but even -- you
know, in my opinion, we should move forward as fast as we
can. I think the City's getting close to finalizing, as I
understand it, their new ordinances, and the County's going
to do a slight -- or is in the process of doing a slight
modification to our Subdivision Rules. So, I think, you
know, from the constituent standpoint, we need to get this
done A.S.A.P. We've had several, in the past year, people
that have had to -- very minor issues and revising plats,
and a great deal of money, a great deal of headache to do
something that should have been much simpler. So, I just
think it's a good time to get it done. And, really, what I
was hoping to get out of the meeting tonight is just a
direction or an agreement as to whether -- which entity is
going to be the administering entity. Not where -- and I
think details about, you know, the roads and all that stuff
would be worked out to make sure that they're in compliance
with each other.
But, you know, I thought about it quite a
bit, and I think that it is better for the County to be the
administrator of the -- in the ETJ, for the main reason that
the ETJ -- the City now has gotten so big that there are
large areas that are, in my mind, never going to be annexed,
especially if you go out Cypress Creek Road, Turtle Creek,
you know, areas like that, due to the annexation of the
7-29-03 cc
174
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
airport and Whiskey Canyon, Comanche Trace, huge areas, and
the ETJ may expand 2 miles in the not-too-distant future.
So, to me, it's just that the City's rules are a little --
tend to be a little more onerous, more requirements in it,
and I just think it's unnecessary to have county residents
have to meet some of those requirements. And I think it's
easier, as long as we can come to an agreement on basically
road construction, right-of-way issues.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. I've had an
opportunity to -- to review your current Subdivision
Regulations and our current -- as well as our U.D.C. that's
being developed right now, and I would say this; that with
regard to those areas where, you know -- you know, you're
not going to be there, that's one issue, but in the ETJ
areas where we're not that far on the horizon for
annexation, I do foresee some issues. Because when I review
the two, we do see things like, with regard to cul-de-sac
length -- and I can give you a list. I mean, it's a fairly
lengthy list of where we have differences that are very
important to us with regard to fire, EMS, you know, police
services, addressing, you know, a lot of things that we
have, and even some of our drainage issues, that they don't
match up.
And what I would foresee is -- is that, in
short order, in those areas where we do annex, you know,
7 9-03 jcc
175
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 living with a problem that we felt like should have
been managed with regard to those rules and regulations
that, you know, meet. 'Cause we've got, you know,
stormwater management issues and all kind of things that are
coming upon us shortly. You're going to have those, too.
But we have, in some cases, additional requirements because
of our population. And, in addition to that, we also just
have some standards that, if we're going to annex that area
in any short order anyway, as I said, not -- not 25 or 30
years away, we would like to be able to insure that this ETJ
development occurs in accordance with those standards, so
think I think if we can come to some agreement over those,
that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there -- I think
there are probably fewer areas like that, though there
clearly are some. And I don't know if the legislation gives
the ability to have two sets of rules in the ETJ. I
suspect --
MR. HAYES: It does, actually. The -- let me
just jump in here, too. It actually allows these two bodies
to get together to formulate an agreement to either give
exclusive jurisdiction to the County, exclusive jurisdiction
to the City, apportion part of the ETJ to each, or develop
one set of rules that's going to apply to the whole ETJ.
So, that -- you know, that's going to be kind of the initial
7-~9-G3 ~cc
176
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
consideration, which way these -- this body wants to go.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- anyway, and I
think that's the -- the first step. We need to figure out
how we're going to administer -- or divide the ETJ or
administer the ETJ, and then get those -- you know, if it's
going to be the County or City or joint, or split it up; get
the -- you know, the two legal staffs to start working on
the way to get it done. And I -- 'cause, to me, that issue
is probably harder and more important than getting the
details -- I mean, cul-de-sac lengths, all that, those can
be resolved. I don't have a whole lot of worry about that.
Just the -- I see a lot more difficulty in the first one, of
getting the -- the framework set up, and I just think we
need to move forward on that. And I think, you know, my
goal would be, certainly, by the end of this year, to have
this done, the end of this calendar year.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm in total agreement
with Commissioner Letz' comments. My question -- my
question is a legal question. Can -- I mean, and I just
don't understand -- I don't like ETJ. I think the city
stops here and the county starts; it's just simple for me.
But I don't understand the ETJ program. Can you require
people to do -- to comply with city regs or city rules,
whatever it is, in -- in property that's not even in the
city?

177
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. HAYES: Yes, with respect to subdivision.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a horrible law.
That is terrible.
MR. PATTERSON: Well, the rationale behind it
was that the reason you even have an ETJ is for planning
purposes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
MR. PATTERSON: And the idea is -- is that,
in that period, those are the areas that are most imminent
for annexation, is the way the -- if you read the -- the
legislative intent behind the law. And in those most
imminent areas, they're saying, well, it doesn't make sense
that -- if you're going to have these standards, you want
your network of water, sewer, streets and everything to fit
together, that it makes sense that those subdivision
regulations would apply. That's -- again, I'm just telling
you what the legislative intent was, not -- you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the intent makes
sense. But the way cities grow, huge areas get pulled into
the ETJ, that there's no contemplation of being put into the
city limits in the near future. That's the problem that I
have with it. I think county residents have -- I mean, it's
just not going to happen with some of these areas in
probably our lifetimes. But, I mean, clearly -- I mean, if
you're, you know, right on the -- you know, right on the
7-~9-03 jcc
178
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
other side of a new high school, yeah, that area's probably
going to get developed; I think that area maybe needs to be
treated a little bit differently, maybe a different set of
rules. In areas where subdivisions are going to likely pop
up, that area should be treated possibly differently than,
you know, areas along lower Turtle Creek that are -- you
know.
MAYOR FINE: I guess the only problem I see
is, we don't know exactly where these areas are going to be.
'Cause, like, the entire Whiskey Canyon Ranch, you know, I
know when I came on Council, I could see the lower part
becoming part of the city. I mean, obviously, we were right
there, but it -- I didn't see 800 acres of it coming in at
one time. So, really, it's hard to foresee. And we look at
sub -- at development like The Summit, how that's growing
and taking over that entire hill up there. I don't know
anyone besides Andy Phillips who saw that happening, you
know. And he's made it happen, you know. His -- his vision
did happen up there. But, you know, you look at some of the
ranches right behind that. I think the Whelan Ranch borders
the back of The Summit property, and, you know, if you talk
to some people, they may say, you know, that's never going
to happen, but I'm sure it's like everything else. If the
price was right, some of these areas that we don't feel like
would ever be developed might.
-?9-03 jcc
179
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2 4,
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MAYOR FINE: I mean, we can use our best
guess.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I tend
to agree. I mean, like the Whelan property, yes, that's
pretty close in. But what about Deedee Faltin? You don't
even know where he lives. He lives so far back on Cypress
Creek Road, it ain't going to happen.
MAYOR FINE: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And so I think you -- you
just have to do -- you have to look at it. And, clearly,
the City has the ability to annex properties, and when you
annex, it's in the city limits, and it's clearly the City's
responsibility then. I just think that we need to look at
it. And, you know, if the law gives as much flexibility as
it sounds like it does, we can, best we can, come up with a
set of rules that works. And we can always modify it. I'm
sure, once it's done, we can modify -- the ETJ's going to
get modified as the City annexes. It's kind of a living
document. But I think the basic framework can be set down.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, I'm
ambivalent about what the rules are, who administers it. I,
frankly, don't care. But the case that was documented in
the newspaper in a letter to the editor of a citizen who, I
believe, was abused by having to jump through all the hoops
7-.^9-fi3 jcc
180
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
of both systems, and even Commissioner Baldwin couldn't
straighten it out for him, that's got to stop.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We can't be treating
people like that.
MR. MENZIES: If I can jump in, I was
thinking of not that particular case, but I've seen it a
couple times where you guys are talking about how to go
about this, where the City has -- you know, let the City do
it all by itself or let the County do it all by itself, or
have, you know, the same set of rules for both apply. I
think that, using that example, taking three months for a
simple residential replat to go through both the city and
the county, that's way too long. I think that should be the
number one issue. I think there needs to be one set of
rules. We need to decide whether it's the City only or
County only. That's really my biggest reservation, is that,
I mean, that three months that -- you know, I think that's
the second time since I've been here that we've had a
process like that; we've had a residential replat where both
entities are required to -- both entities are required to
make public notification. It just really stretches out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad -- I mean,
from the County's standpoint, I've kind of been the point
person on these rules. I'll be glad to meet with whoever
7-^9 03 jcc
181
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
with the City, you know, Council or staff to get, you know,
a plan presented. I just think it's something we need to
do, you know, sooner rather than later. And I think,
certainly, our rules are both in order enough that we can
proceed full speed ahead on it.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah.
MR. MENZIES: You're not going to reduce the
expense that much, I think, going through us. I think in
the -- in that example, it costs an extra $180 on top of the
$500 to get our expense, but I think it's the time that is
most important.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm wondering also --
it's been a while since I read that law, but it seemed like,
to me, in there somewhere that it -- like, if -- if you were
going to make the decision of either County or City, that
you need to choose the one with the most stringent rules.
MS. BAILEY: Looking at the same rules,
though, it's not going to make any difference if we modify
our rules.
MAYOR FINE: But each one's stringent in
different areas. I think y'all's road makeup is more
23
24
25 stringent.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MAYOR FINE: But our drainage is more
stringent than ours.
182
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. We're not going
to require sidewalks on the Faltin Ranch.
MAYOR FINE: We don't in the ET J, but --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not trying to be
funny. Just -- there's a difference.
MAYOR FINE: No, I know. Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, but the authority
also -- it also goes back to the City and the County have
different authorities, I think. You know, we don't have
authority to do things that you do, and vice-versa, so there
becomes an issue as to who's more stringent. Because some
things, we just can't make them do it, whether we want to or
not, where the City may have that authority; I don't know.
MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, that may become the
decision point. You go, "We want that," but --
MAYOR FINE: What about the counties and the
cities comparable to ours? We can't be the only county in
the state that has this issue. What have they come up with?
MR. HAYES: A lot of cities and counties are
just like us; they didn't get off the mat and do anything
because there was really no penalty provision in the
legislation that was passed in 2001, so now folks are faced
with this issue, and you either have to get in line by 2004,
or, like us, you have to get in line by 2006, or there's an
arbitration process, and you actually have to, you know, go
7-?9-U3 jcc
183
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
before an arbitrator who will essentially decide.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Even more important than
that, it's the right thing to do. For that reason, we need
to get it done.
MAYOR FINE: Well, I guess the first thing we
need to do is sit down with maybe a spreadsheet or a list of
some kind and see what the differences are, and start trying
to work down and just see how far apart we truly are. That
might be the first place to start, before we start picking
who's going to do what. I mean --
MR. PATTERSON: You certainly need to know
what rules you're going to be enforcing. Doesn't matter
who's enforcing; you got to know that.
MAYOR FINE: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, do you want me to get
with Ron? Do you have a start-up list?
MAYOR FINE: Either Ron --
MR. PATTERSON: I got a list over here of
stuff.
MAYOR FINE: Either Ron or Paul, one of the
two.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll get with Ron and
whoever else Ron wants to meet with, start it going.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Is there anything we
can do in the interim of another citizen comes up and just
7-~9-03 jcc
184
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
wants to draw a line, divide a piece of property? Could --
could one -- either the City or County waive their
participation in the process?
MAYOR FINE: I don't think we legally can
just waive it, can we?
MR. HAYES: Not under our current ordinance,
we can't.
wanted to.
MAYOR FINE: I don't think we could if we
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We probably could. I
don't think that's going to happen, but --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Easier to ask
forgiveness than it is to ask permission.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's all I had.
MR. PATTERSON: Are there any other items?
Obviously, what our goal here will be to is eventually work
through the sheet, know what the numbers are going to be so
that they can be plugged into both budgets. That's what
it's all designed to do. I know it's been a very long
meeting, but I appreciate your diligence and your patience,
and thank you very much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Ron.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Ron.
MR. PATTERSON: I would also ask you that
if -- if there is data that you're not getting, if there's
i-29-U3 jcc
185
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
something that you feel like we're not giving you, if
there's something that we've done wrong or you want
different, please let me know. And we only do it once a
year, this particular process, but we're always trying to
improve our processes. So, if there's something else that
you need, or if there's something that we haven't given you
in the past or tonight, please let us know. We'll be glad
to take that constructive criticism, make those changes. We
want to make sure you get what you need. Other than that,
you know, we -- again, as I said, we're shooting for
August 11th, trying to draw the budget together be able to
put together. So, any feedback we can receive, or
vice-versa, the other way around, I'll meet with Council and
try and put anything together and feed that back to you in
case there's anything there. Other than that, again, I
thank you very much. I appreciate it. Hope the meal was
okay. And, thank y'all; appreciate your participation.
Thank y'all.
JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate your hospitality
and your willingness to take the time to go over these
issues with us. We appreciate it.
MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Thank you.
MAYOR FINE: Thank y'all for coming. Is
there anyone who does not wish to adjourn? It's unanimous;
we're out of here.
~-~9-03 jcc
186
1
2
3
4
5
6

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: We stand adjourned.
(Joint City Council and Commissioners Court
meeting adjourned at 8:55 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 11th day of August,
2003.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : --~~Gb~ i~~ ------------
Kathy Ba~ k, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
i-"~-C13 ]cc