1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
and
KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
County/City Joint Workshop
Wednesday, October 5, 2005
1:30 p.m.
District Court Jury Room # 2
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
Library Operations/Funding
P R E S E N T
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
Kerrville City Council:
CARL MEEK, Mayor Pro Tem
TODD A. BOCK, Councilperson, Place 1
DAVID WAMPLER, Councilperson, Place 3
CHUCK COLEMAN, Councilperson, Place 4
DON DAVIS, Interim City Manager
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
On Wednesday, October 5, 2005, at 1:30 p.m., a special
joint workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and the
Kerrville City Council was held in the District Court Jury
Room #2, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and the
following proceedings were had in open court:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go ahead and call to
order the posted joint Commissioners Court and City Council
workshop agenda scheduled for this date and time, Wednesday,
October the 5th, 2005, at 1:30 p.m. It is just a bit past
that now. The only item that I have posted on the agenda
which we posted was to consider and discuss library
operations, funding, and rights and obligations of the City
and County respectively concerning those operations and
funding. I -- I recognize that the library is an essential
government function, and we need to do what we can to
provide those services to the citizens the best way that we
can. I'm a little disappointed in the attention that's been
given to the contract previously, but I'm hopeful, and I
think with everyone here having the same mind-set, that
won't continue to be the way it's looked at. I have a
couple of items, if I might, that I'd like to pitch out on
the table.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Before you do, doesn't
the City have to open their meeting?
10-4-05 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
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you want to go ahead and
MR. MEEK: Sure. I'll call to order the
meeting of the Kerrville City Council at 1:35, October the
6th (sic).
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Keep us legal.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. I apologize for
that. I -- I have noted with some interest in the -- in the
newspaper that the Library Director has -- has reported that
the shortfall in funding -- and I can only conclude that it
meant the, I believe, $232,000 in funding; it may have meant
some portion or all of it -- could cause some loss in
accreditation and could jeopardize some grant funding. But
I have not seen any specifics or any information which gave
me any circumstances -- factual circumstances under which
that would occur or was likely to occur. And I'm -- I'm not
aware if anybody has seen those, except possibly
Mr. Martinez. And, certainly, if that's a concern, I
need -- I need to know, and I would think that everybody
involved would need to know at what threshold point that
would occur. Or are we just saying, you know, it could
occur, as in saying we could have a tornado here? I need
the specifics under which that -- that is likely to occur,
and I've never seen that. And I'm not aware that any of you
gentlemen have, either.
10-4-05 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I can tell you, from
never heard that concern expressed, nor did I ever see any
documentation or presentation to that effect.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's a
good question, but I don't -- I guess I'm looking more at
trying to go more forward today, as opposed to trying to
figure out some of these issues and kind of get -- I mean,
my idea of the purpose today is really to get some questions
that I'd like to get back from the City. I don't know that
-- maybe they can answer them today; maybe they can't, on
operations of the library, and resolve one issue that has
been addressed in the new contract, but was somewhat
unaddressed in the prior contract related to capital items.
But the -- and then put a few things on the table. I mean,
and I guess I can put it in categories, in my mind. And I
think we clearly -- if accreditation is an issue, that's
something we need to be aware of. What I'd like to look at
is, one, clarify once and for all that the County is not
responsible for capital items. I mean, it's been said in
court the other day. It's in the new contract in black and
white, and that -- you know, that issue. There is, in the
budget that I have seen, a capital expenditure item line
item, and I think that should be taken out.
25 ~ The other two areas that I would like to see
10-4-05 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
discussed here today or get information back from either the
library or from Antonio would be fees. I am a firm believer
in user-pay to the extent possible. As I understand it, for
library cards, they're free to county residents right now,
and city residents, obviously, since they're county
residents too. I think they should be charging for that. I
think the people that use the library should pay to use the
library. It's pretty simple. It may not cover all the
costs, but at least it would bring in some revenue, help
balance it a little bit there. And, of course, these fees
could go -- to me, it's a heck of a lot simpler just to
attribute them back, not trying to split them out between
the city and county. I mean, it's -- a fee's a fee.
And then the other thing I'd like to see on
the table is, looking at the library, kind of -- they call
it a service review, as to are there things that we can do
that don't drastically alter the service, but save money?
Maybe some reduction in hours. I heard it -- I think at one
of our Commissioners Court meetings, someone brought up the
idea of reducing the hours of the circulation desk, even
though the library may be open, you know. I don't know if
that saves money or not, but anything that we can do to --
to trim some expenditures, I'd like to hear. And then once
we get that information on the table, then we can decide,
yes, we want to do it, or no, we don't want to do it. And I
10-4-05 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
think the fact that the City -- that we're meeting today, I
guess it kind of goes without saying that there's a -- I'm
very happy there's an agreement to at least get -- you know,
the library operations are open for discussion. Otherwise,
we wouldn't be here today. So, that's kind of just what I
with that individually. We have not met as a Council yet,
but I would like to let everybody know that I agree with the
resolution that the County put forth regarding cooperation.
There's a couple of issues in there that I'm unfamiliar
with, like the ETJ development thing. I hope that we can
work together and cooperate to get this thing working. I
think there are ways in the budget that we could probably
reduce some of our costs without -- without impairing or
impacting services terribly. I do think, from a capital
expenditure standpoint, I think that if -- if we operate
as -- as a business, where it's a fair and equitable charge
for each -- each governmental entity, and it's -- and it's
charged out as a business, or each one assumes their share
of the business costs, if you go to any business in town,
you're going to see -- you're going to have a fee from those
-- from that business, and they're going to -- they're going
to charge their operating costs, and they're also going to
build into that their capital replacement reserve or their
10-4-05 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
depreciation expense, which previously the County has been
paying 100 percent as it occurred, you know.
So, you -- you guys take from that concept if
y'all are not responsible for capital expenditures, you have
a lot of equity that's built up that could have been --
could have been charged on a ratable basis throughout years
of its useful life, so to speak. I think it would be
complicated to try to get into that, although I'm -- I'm not
opposed -- I'm not opposed to that. Whatever does work. I
think also -- and I haven't had a chance to talk to anybody
about this. There are times when -- and this gets real
creative. There are times when different entities have
different revenue situations. The County's hurting right
now. City might hurt next year. You know, it's going to
vacillate back and forth. Maybe there's a way to -- between
the two entities, to barter. I know the City is in
desperate need of street maintenance and repair, and I know
the County has a lot of equipment relative to that. There
might be a way where downtime on the county side could be
used to build up a barter pool for the city side. I have no
idea. It may not be legal, but in exchange for shortfalls
on -- on budget funding, maybe.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One thing you mentioned
on the County hurting financially, that's certainly a true
statement, but one of the things that -- I thought about
10-4-05 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
25
this as I was driving in today, that I think would be very
helpful, probably for -- on both sides, and not necessarily
today, but just put it on the table a little bit, is to go
into what the other government entity does. I -- my
perception is that the City has a whole lot more
discretionary money than the County does. We are mandated
so heavily by Austin and mandated with every elected
official you see, which is equivalent to department heads in
the city. We don't have a choice; we have to fund that, and
we have to give them the personnel and everything they need
by law to serve that function. We -- there's been a lot in
the press about the over-65 exemption, but one thing that we
have forgotten about that costs more than that is we also
had a new unfunded mandate come down from Austin related to
indigent defense. It's -- we've put in about $150,000 we
had to spend on that. Our indigent health care bills
approached you, know, eight
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Almost a million.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Almost a million dollars.
Indigent defense, another 500,000, 600,000 a year, and
that's with the hope that we never have capital murder
trials. If we do that, we automatically put in another
200,000 for that one trial. I mean, and those are things
that we just don't have a choice on. And that is a lot of
the reason that we end up with a lot -- with a very tight
10-4-05 jcc
9
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
budget. And this year is kind of -- somebody referred to it
as a perfect storm hit the county, and it did. This year,
with the combination of the tax freeze, this new mandate,
the juvenile detention facility, it did hit us bad this
year. And -- but I think that year-in, year-out, by the
nature of our budget and what our requirements are, we
probably have a tighter budget every year compared to the
City. And I would be -- you know, there might be some years
that that's wrong, but -- maybe I don't understand what the
City does, but we do -- and library, like it or not, from
our standpoint, is somewhat discretionary. We want to do
it, but it's a discretionary item.
We have to fund the jail; we have to fund
lots of other -- you know, all these courts and indigent
health care, and that's the law. And library is something
that we would like to do. We'd like to do more parks, but
we just can't afford it. And I think that is something
that, you know, we need to understand that, you know, the
County is in a tough situation this year, but we probably
are almost every year. And that's why I think we quoted the
idea, and City Council has too, of a library district. It
gets it into a whole separate realm that it can be funded
and get away from the -- at least get it away from Austin
giving the County a lot of unfunded mandates that really do
kill us every year.
10-4-05 jcc
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
district myself.
might work. I do
as it has been in
the funding, I do
all the budget li
that it should be
the budget should
feasible.
MR. COLEMAN: I'm not adverse to a library
I know very little about that, how it
think, with the County being responsible,
the past, looking back, for 50 percent of
think the County does need to see totally
~e items. And then I also think that --
negotiated back and forth in terms of what
be set at if a library district is not
MR. MEEK: I'd like to say something, take
off on what Chuck opened there. I'd really like to know
what the County's thoughts are. Obviously, we furnish --
we're in charge of some of the enterprises and y'all are in
charge of others. Are you interested in negotiating on
every line item of ours and us on yours? Or do you merely
want to give input on the line items and ultimately leave it
up to -- if it's -- if it's the library, it's the City. If
it is Animal Control, it's the County. Do y'all have any
feedback on that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is that I want
input on the whole process, because you start talking about
level of service, and I think that's something -- I think
that that has to be negotiated. I don't think it is
appropriate for either entity to say this is the level of
service we're going to give, period. I mean, I think, you
10-4-05 jcc
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, we know what our constituents want, which is also city
constituents; we have to balance all that out, and I don't
think it makes any difference if it's Animal Control or
library or EMS. I think that they have to be -- I mean,
there's -- there's nowhere else to go, really, for most of
those services that make sense for the whole community.
MR. MEEK: If I'm understanding you right,
you would like everything thrown up for negotiation. What
happens when you come to an impasse? Do you, at that point,
whoever's in charge of that entity, make that decision? Or
do you just sit there and can't agree?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Let me see if I can
field that, Councilman.
MR. MEEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand where
you're coming from, and I don't disagree. I think we need
to have a greater understanding of what each other does.
MR. MEEK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: In each of these
enterprises. We used to have that opportunity. I'm not
castigating anything or anybody. And by the presentation
of -- of the library budget or airport or whatever, we had
the opportunity to look behind the numbers, if you will, and
ask the questions, okay? For example, I think y'all --
somebody just said we all need to have a little greater
10-4-05 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
understanding of what the library's all about. A library
operation is a complex operation. I ran this question by
somebody who is pretty knowledgeable about a library -- and
just using this as a case in point or reference. Can you
tell me what -- other than general operations, how do you
distinguish, for example, technical services from
circulation services from patron services and general
operations? Now, those are four of five categories or
divisions of expense that make up the basic library. Now,
if I were to ask you that question, could you give me the
answer?
MR. MEEK: I could not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Case in point.
We need to understand exactly what it is and how to do that,
and what's behind the numbers. How do we do that? We do
that in meetings like we're doing today, with somebody
having prepared the sheets -- these backup sheets, which we
finally got, and have the opportunity to ask questions.
Somebody mentioned a while ago, is there a way to curb --
curb expense without curtailing the basic service that the
public has come to understand and appreciate and enjoy and
use? I don't know. I really don't know, because I can't
tell you whether circulation services are expanded. I see
we spend more on circulation services than we do on patron
services, which causes me to ask the question, by
10-9-05 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
definition, what are we doing? Help me.
MR. MEEK: Well, Antonio can --
MR. COLEMAN: Commissioner, part of the
budget includes these narratives that describe each of the
functions. If you all did not receive full budgetary
information, that would have been a part of that package.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is now, and I have
it in front of me. But I'm just trying to make a point,
Councilman. Help us understand better.
MR. MEEK: I think you make an excellent
point. Communication can definitely be improved on all of
our joint activities, going both ways, and I applaud you for
bringing that up. There is -- there's -- I want to meet
with y'all. I'm so glad we're meeting today.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Me too.
MR. MEEK: What is past is past. I feel
today is beginning of a new day, and we have an opportunity
to get over some past hurdles and look for solutions here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree with you.
MR. MEEK: Not focus -- we must deal with --
somewhat with the past in order to identify potential
improvements, problems and improvements, but I would hope
when we've done a good job here today, personalities aren't
involved in this at all. This is -- we basically have the
same constituents, more or less, and we have opportunities
10-9-05 jcc
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
to continue on with our joint operations. If we -- I mean,
sometimes administratively, we might get frustrated. You
might get frustrated and think, this is so difficult; let's
just do our own deal. But that is -- would be a great
disservice to the taxpayers to have to fund that duplicity.
So, intergovernmental relations -- good intergovernmental
relations serve all of the taxpayers and our constituents,
and I applaud everyone for being here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too.
MR. MEEK: And I, for one, definitely am
wide-open to any suggestions y'all have, and let's do --
let's improve our services.
13
14 issue.
15
16
17 establ
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are a bedrock
MR. MEEK: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And we need to
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Carl? I want to
address your -- your concern about impasse. My opinion is
that there should not be an impasse at any point. I can see
us running into rocks in the road and hurdles, et cetera.
But all good and reasonable men should be able to sit down
and -- and sit there. I remember years ago, the City and
the County sitting for hours and hammering out minute
details over and over and over again, and we would finally,
10-4-05 jcc
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
at the end of the day -- and sometimes it took all day to --
we'd get to a point where there was an agreement, and it was
a give-and-take type thing. So, I just think reasonable men
can sit down and work out anything if you're -- if you're
willing to sit at the table long enough.
MR. MEEK: Like I say, I applaud that -- that
concept, and hopefully that would work most of the time.
Maybe it would work all of the time. But I do think you
need to be prepared for the what-if situation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MR. MEEK: It would appear to me that open
communication, access to information, discussions on any and
all line items, are in order. But as long as one entity is
in charge of that particular branch, I believe the final
decision needs to lay with that entity. Otherwise, this --
this process will have a very -- I'm afraid will have a very
difficult time moving forward in an expeditious way. But
I -- I like what you say. Reasonable people can work things
out, and I would like to operate under that assumption, as
long as it was progressing. There's -- there's another item
that I'd like to throw out there. I know our -- our
different entities operate differently. We, as Councilmen,
operate through our City Manager. And I know y'all have
wanted to be able to go to different entities operated --
25 ~ let's use the library here -- go to Mr. Martinez one-on-one
10-4-05 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
and ask him any type of line item questions. That becomes
pretty burdensome if there are five different people
contacting him on different schedules. It would appear to
me if we could have joint meetings with us, or say with the
City Manager and a department head, meet with y'all at once
instead of each one individually, it would be a much more
efficient operation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Carl, I don't have a real
problem with that, and I guess in concept the problem comes
up -- and I'm probably the one person on Commissioners Court
that has the biggest problem with this policy -- is that
if -- if I just have a question for any city department
head, I don't know why I can't call them. I mean, I just --
really, it makes no sense to me. I'm a taxpayer of this
community as well. I can -- I should be able to call anyone
I want. Now, if I want to -- if I'm getting into policy and
going into saying, "Antonio, generate all these reports,"
yeah, that's one thing. But if I'm just calling, "Tell me,
how many employees do you have?" I mean, to go through a
bureaucratic system of me contacting -- need to have a joint
meeting scheduled or call the City Manager and then go
through that route, that's just a total bureaucracy.
MR. MEEK: I will listen to any type of
policy idea. That is a policy decision here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
10-4-05 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
MR. MEEK: I'll listen to any ideas. Let's
throw them up on the wall and see what sticks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause this -- I mean,
and I don't think it has ever been abused by the County, at
least by me asking questions of anyone on the City
government. But this policy is -- is new. This came about
a year and a half ago.
MR. MEEK: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And prior to that, you
know, there was pretty much a -- you know, and that was
about the time when Antonio didn't come to Commissioners
Court any more. The first couple years, he came at least
once a year, it seemed. And before
think -- and I'm just saying Antonio
we had Mindy Wendele came occasional
Manager came occasionally, and Chief
issues, and we communicated. We had
that -- Chief Holloway, for example,
on emergency coordination.
-- you know, and I
'cause he's here, but
1y and the Airport
Holloway came on
this interrelationship
he works for the County
MR. MEEK: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, why should -- when
we're -- we designated him. If the City doesn't want us to
use Chief Holloway to do some county functions, well, then
tell us and we'll	appoint	someone	to talk	to us.
MR.	MEEK:	Can you	suggest	-- you've given
10-4-05 jcc
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some thought to this already -- some type of written idea,
some policy? Get together and hatch this out. That is a
specific item that I think is important. But that would
take a lot of time that we probably don't have here to come
to any conclusions. But I would love to see -- there may be
some limited pick-up-the-phone-and-call situations where
that would be in order. But some guidelines probably --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand.
MR. MEEK: -- need to be agreed upon.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's
important to note that we don't -- even though we do our own
thing as Commissioners, as opposed to you having a staff
that does a lot of work for you --
MR. MEEK: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- typically, we have
people assigned to these various functions.
MR. MEEK: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Dave now is --
Commissioner Nicholson is now the liaison to airport -- to
the library, and I had been for many years. Commissioner
Letz and I are the airport and whatever.
MR. MEEK: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, you know, I don't
think it's going to be a situation where all five of us are
calling up Brian or Antonio or somebody else beating on
10-4-05 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
their heads trying to get information. I can channel my
questions through Commissioner Nicholson.
MR. MEEK: I'm all for the most efficient
dissemination of information.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Judge? It's -- this
is getting a little bit unfair. We're getting off the
agenda item.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I've got the City
Manager and the press sitting behind me, and that's not a
fair thing. If you want to switch chairs, we can just talk
about -- (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are they mumbling at
you?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, but I sense --
JUDGE TINLEY: But they can't hear him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You can sense a
little heat down there?
MR. COLEMAN: I thought you were bigger and
could kind of shield it.
JUDGE TINLEY: You're right, we probably need
to drift more over onto that -- to the library issues, the
funding and the operations, as per the agenda. But I -- I
found Councilman Coleman's item very interesting, the barter
aspect. Because, you know, there may be some things that we
10-4-05 jcc
20
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
can do very, very efficiently that -- that we're not making
full utilization of our equipment maybe at a particular time
that we can -- what the legalities are, I don't know that.
We'll let the lawyers work that out. But I -- I see no
problem working out some sort of an interlocal agreement, as
long as there's consideration -- it moves back and forth.
But that's certainly one possibility that -- that I think
bears looking into, so that we might be able to take care of
one another, because that's really what it's all about
anyway.
The -- the situation that we're in now, I
understand -- I wasn't present, but I understand that you
gentlemen have fully funded what you put in your budget for
the library. We are at the point where we approved our
budget and adopted our tax rate finally, and so we're kind
of plugged into where we are. But if -- if we're going to
be able to do better than -- than what we got in the current
budget, we're going to need to see if we can find somewhere
else within that budget that we can take it from, because
our tax rate is -- is fully set. Certainly, if we're -- if
we're able to find some -- some amount of funds so that we
can provide better assistance, I think -- I think it
behooves us to do that, because it is a -- it is a
significant function that's performed, and the citizens rely
on it. And -- but it now falls in our lap to try and find
10-9-05 jcc
21
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
where we're going to get those funds, if we've got a place
to get them, and I think that's going to take some -- some
pretty creative work on behalf of our part if we can do
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, Judge, I
identified some at the previous Monday meeting, areas where
we could effect some budget transfers. That's not going to
be the purpose of this meeting today, because it's not
styled that way. And there may be some other ways, other
areas of the -- of the existing budget where we could
fashion some budget amendments and transfer some dollars
into it, but I think we've got to know what it is we're
trying to fund. Now, I think that's the purpose of -- of
today's meeting, is to have a greater understanding of what
is anticipated or expected of the County within that
$416,000 budget and whether that -- whether that split is
really the split that we want to buy into, or something less
than that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it goes back, to me,
to the first item, and Chuck mentioned he thinks that
looking at -- if I understood what he said on capital items,
that there needs to be some charge for that; maybe not all
in one year. Kind of look at it as depreciated-type items,
you know, which is interesting. I think it gets a little
confusing, but I think the thing you have to remember is
10-4-05 jcc
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
that, you know, we don't own anything there, and that was
never the intent for the County to own it. Now, if -- you
know, granted, we did -- in the last 10 years, have funded
some pretty major capital improvement items, elevators and
roofs and air-conditioners and things. But if the Butt
family had intended the County to own it, they would have
given it half-and-half. They didn't intend -- that's not
what they did. They gave us -- they gave it to the City and
told us to help pay for operations. And whether they're
charging on capital items, you know, that can -- you know,
certainly they are, but I just don't see how, under the
original intent, the County should be responsible for
capital items. And I think this is a really important issue
to really hammer out now, because the Friends have
commissioned a study on expanding, and we're basically --
it's that issue. If -- you know, if the County pays for an
expansion, then we're going to own it, and we don't own the
other part. I think you really get into a -- a very
confusing situation if we don't -- if we start changing the
way the ownership is currently set up.
MR. MEEK: May I respond? Jonathan, I have
not read the original agreement that the County and the City
entered into. Maybe someone here has -- okay, Dave has.
I'd be curious -- in the deed, when the Butts conveyed the
-- Butts and the Holdsworths conveyed the property to the
10-4-05 jcc
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
City, was it under the condition that it remain a library?
is, it's not -- it may not be that we -- we may own it
conditionally, is what I'm thinking.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know the
answer to that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I haven't seen that.
MR. MEEK: And if that's the case, it's --
that puts a bit of a different color on it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have no idea. I don't
know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't either.
MR. BENHAM: I can answer that in part, if
you'll let me. I can't answer your question entirely about
the main building. However, when the Friends were -- took
the lead, I think you could say, in raising the money for
the other two buildings, the one that's now the history and
genealogy center and the one which the City is using
temporarily for some of its offices, the building between
the main library and the history and genealogy center where
the Cypress Grill and so forth used to be, that money was
donated largely by foundations with very specific
conditions, that those properties would be used only for
library purposes. There was no -- for instance, the -- the
Peterson Foundation's donation of -- don't hold me to this.
10-9-05 jcc
24
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 think it was 150,000; it may have been more. Anyway,
whatever it was, that -- that document said very
specifically this money is being given strictly and
exclusively for the purchase of property as library -- for
library purposes. Now, as I say, I don't know what the
conditions are of the main library, but the other two
buildings are definitely earmarked or tied down or whatever
you want to call it there.
If I could add one sentence, and I promise
not to make it more than one, I think it's very important
for all of you gentlemen to know, if you don't know, there's
some confusion over the term "capital investment." And I --
I understand why it's confusing. It shouldn't be, but it
is. Federal guidelines require that the purchase of books
be shown as a capital investment. Now, to me, books ought
to be part of the operating expense of the library, because
they have to be renewed constantly. Nondurable goods, I
guess you could call them. But the federal government says
you have to capitalize -- every time you buy a book, you
have to capitalize it. And my understanding of this budget
is that the only capital item in that budget is for the
purchase of books. Not asking for anything involving the
building or anything like that. It's -- 100 percent of it
goes for books, and that's a federal government requirement;
there's no flexibility on it. And I hope that'll be helpful
10-4-05 jcc
25
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
to you.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Benham, we --
the library will die without books. When we're talking
about capital, we're not talking about that line item.
MR. BENHAM: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I am. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's because it's an
ownership of a -- of an asset. And because when we did this
contract, I asked the question -- it was in court, not a
joint meeting -- as to should we designate out, and the
response was, the way I read the contract is that's dictated
by law. Our accounting principles -- general accounting
principals dictate what "capital" means. And I said, okay,
that's fine, as long as we understand if we're going to go
by the federal law, it says "capital." If that's not what
we intend, the contract we just signed needs to be amended,
'cause it says capital. And we were going by federal law.
So, I think that -- you know, and I think it's odd, but
that's in the agreement we just signed. So, for next year,
books are not included, in my mind, because it says it's
excluded right there. And, I mean, I just want it to be
open for discussion, which it is.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it's an
anomaly. If -- if you open a law office and you buy books,
10-4-05 jcc
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
you don't capitalize them, you expense them. And I don't
know what possibly the purpose of the federal law could be.
One thing that occurred to me is that when you go for
grants, you usually can't get a grant for expense items from
a private foundation, so maybe the reason books are called
capital is to facilitate the -- the application for grants.
MR. MEEK: I think what Chuck was saying
earlier, if I understood him -- and jump in here if I -- I
believe he was drawing the conclusion or the assertion that
if it's not a capital item, you're still -- if you're -- if
you're providing a service, built into your fee as the
provider of the service is going to be enough to cover
replacement of capital items. Is that what you were saying?
MR. COLEMAN: It is. I personally think it's
better if everything is done on a -- on an equitable -- fair
and equitable fair market value basis to the extent that it
can be. And if it were a situation where it was fair and
equitably charged -- fair and equitable charge to the County
for their portion, the City would be in a posture where
they'd have to take capital expenditure and amortize it over
time and -- and recoup that, as would any other business.
Now -- now, all of that being said, I do think it gets too
complicated. I don't think we can do it. It's my way of
saying, Jonathan, that I really understand what you're
saying, but I also think that that capital is really a part
10-4-05 jcc
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
of that operating cost of that -- that library. Now, I'm
not adverse to researching dual ownership of the library. I
know that with the airport -- I'm not sure how that
occurred, but with the airport, it's dual ownership.
There's a board that manages it through the City as the
contract manager, and everything is fifty-fifty. There's a
lot of grants received from --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: TexDOT.
MR. COLEMAN: Yeah, and other -- the aviation
organization, that kind of thing. If there's not anything
in the deed, if -- if it doesn't create some kind of legal
issue, maybe that is a possible solution, along with the
library district. And then that way, the County wouldn't
necessarily feel that they were funding capital expenditures
for something that they don't own.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm glad you
mentioned library district, because I think, you know, what
we're -- we really should be talking about -- you know, we
should be talking about the future, and I'd like to find a
mechanism by which we can avoid having a repeat of this type
of discussion over the library in the future. In my mind --
in my mind, that is a library district, a county-wide
library district, where the operation of the -- of the
library, expense the capital items, everything, is spread
all over the entire tax base. And that gives the City and
10-9-05 jcc
28
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 County both the opportunity to pull that amount that
we're spending right now out of our respective budgets, and
we have a separate board that administers and oversees and
the whole bit. I think that is the long-term solution. And
if that's not the long-term solution, I'll be available for
anybody that wants to try to convince me otherwise, but I
think that is the long-term solution.
MR. COLEMAN: Do you believe that can be done
without an increase in taxes?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think we can be
creative about it and probably achieve that, Chuck. I
really do. I think we can sit down, and with that as a
task, and -- and try to structure that and look at the
numbers, to the finite numbers, and come to that conclusion.
But, frankly, I think so.
MR. COLEMAN: I personally don't --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You don't think we
can?
MR. COLEMAN: No, I wouldn't be adverse to
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: I agree with what you're
saying.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It scares me to talk
about creating new taxing entities. My guess is what will
10-4-05 jcc
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
happen -- we've currently got a library that costs a million
dollars a year, right at a million dollars a year. My guess
is what would happen is, we'll create a new taxing district
-- library district, and that would come -- and the budget
would be a million dollars or more, and you would not see
the City of Kerrville or Kerr County drop their budgets by
half a million dollars each. It would just be another
million dollars of ad valorem taxes collected.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, then, I would not want
that situation to occur, obviously, nor do I think anybody
else would. And maybe an alternative is to explore half
ownership of the library by the County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I don't think
it has to be the way my colleague says it could be. Sure,
it could be that way, but if we both honorably go into it
and tell the public that we're going to ask their support to
create the library district, and pledge to them that we'll
relieve our existing budgets of the corresponding amount of
dollars, we've made a pledge to the public, and if we don't
-- and if we don't live up to that pledge, then, you know,
vote us out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to look
at the library district. I mean, if we -- you know, it
needs to be looked at. We need to understand how it will
25 ~ work, where the money will come from. That may take
10-4-05 jcc
30
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
legislation to give a tax -- it would take legislation to
give a taxing authority, and take a vote of the people also,
I believe.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the people -- you
know, I'm pretty much in favor of putting things before the
people. If they want the library expanded and bigger,
better, new buildings --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- let them tax
themselves for it. I'd much rather
know, the current setup. That way,
controlling, basically, the future.
look at what the -- you know, how w
the County Attorney's office or the
Representative Hilderbran's office,
have that than, you
the -- the voters are
So, I think we need to
-- who researches it,
City's office or
I don't know that, but
we plainly need to do that and come back in several months
with the options there. Maybe the Friends or the Library
Advisory Board are the best vehicle to look at the options.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I support that,
Commissioner. I think we ought to go down that path and --
and look at it, see how viable it is, and they hold an
election, and if -- if the taxpayers wind up getting stuck
with more taxes, they'll have a -- they'll have a say in it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- the two issues
10-4-05 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
that -- and that issue we can't resolve. We can commit to
look into it, and that's about as far as we can go, I think.
Or the City, through the Library Manager -- or City Manager,
I mean, can they tell me, please, what can be done? What
the current thing is, how much is coming in from fees? I
can see that; very little. Is there a problem with raising
fees to help generate revenue to offset the expense?
MR. MEEK: I think Antonio could answer that,
but I'm -- I have a question along that same line. Doesn't
the act or something say something about free library? What
is that?
MR. MARTINEZ: Texas Administrative Code,
Title 13, Chapter 1, would prohibit us from charging some
fees.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some fees or all fees?
MR. MARTINEZ: We're currently charging all
the fees we can charge, except for parking lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When is the last time
we reviewed those fees, and with a view toward adjusting
them?
MR. MARTINEZ: They're reviewed annually, but
there have only been minor increases.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to go back to --
so county libraries can't charge a card fee? A user fee?
MR. MARTINEZ: Not a card fee and not a user
10-4-05 jcc
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fee, no.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How does Corral County
get away with it?
MR. MARTINEZ: I have no idea.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, they do.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean -- I said a
library -- I mean, I don't know if it's Houston Public or
Harris County. I think it's Houston. I know they charge
fees.
MR. WAMPLER: Can a municipal library charge
fees, as opposed to a county library?
MR. MARTINEZ: It depends on the
establishment. If you're established as a free municipal
library or a free county library or a free joint
city/county, you cannot charge fees, not for library cards.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Corral County has a
very similar situation, Councilman.
MR. MARTINEZ: We charge for replacement
cards.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The library is in New
Braunfels, and they charge -- they charge a fee for any user
who's outside the city of New Braunfels. It's essentially
the same situation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'd like to look
at that, 'cause fees -- I just am a believer in user-pay as
10-4-05 jcc
33
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
much as possible. Maybe not the whole cost, but at least
contribute more than anyone who's been a nonuser. The fees
on that -- I guess the library card, does that extend to
computer usage?
MR. MARTINEZ: All services must be provided
free, except for reserving books, in-depth research, costs
for accessing electronic resources that we incur to provide
information. But anything that is obtainable at the library
must be free of charge.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You said -- and I'm not
trying to, I guess, split hairs on this, but you said costs
that we incur to provide -- to get the information, or
research.
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, like, a DSL line, can
we charge -- I mean, which those computers -- you know, the
technology portion of your budget is about 23 percent of
your budget, something like that. It's a bunch of money.
And I don't -- I think it's a good thing to make available,
but I -- if I hear a complaint on any topic over there, it's
coming out of those computers. It's -- and not the
pornography stuff and all that, just misuse of the
computers. They think -- they, the people that use the
library, and a lot more than I certainly do, they say that
10-4-05 jcc
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they see computers being used for playing games and things
of that nature, as opposed to research, and several big
supporters of the library have complained about that to me.
So, you know, I don't see computers as an essential -- for
research, they're good, and they need to be there and
they're very helpful. But from the standpoint of a library,
I don't know how many computers need to be there. And there
might be -- it's an area that I would be interested in
really looking at real closely.
MR. MEEK: I would like to hear from Antonio.
Isn't the	-- the wave of	the future to	have	more and more
computers	in libraries as	time -- isn'	t that	projected?
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, the study being
conducted by the Friends is already saying we don't have
enough computers. You know, personally, I think it's a
problem with lack of space to put any more computers. We
really don't have anywhere to place any more computers.
MR. MEEK: But do you see that as a useful
component?
MR. MARTINEZ: Very -- very useful, and
definitely heavily used. And, you know, we couldn't do
without it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Last summer, the
University of Texas main undergraduate library moved all its
books out to make way for computers. This fall, a new high
10-4-05 jcc
35
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
school in Phoenix, Arizona opened with no books and nothing
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it may be the
wave of the future, but the county has certainly found
technology is very, very expensive. We just spent a little
over a million dollars on new software to run the county
system.
MR. COLEMAN: And it changes rapidly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's got a five- to
six-year life, hopefully long enough, but the reality is
that's about how much we got. So, I think that, you know,
if we're going down a computer road with the library, we're
talking about a bunch of money, and I -- the County doesn't
have that kind of money. You know, and I guess it gets me
to one of the things as to -- and, you know, trying to
figure out exactly under the organization of this library,
what we're required to do, what we can and can't do, which I
don't know. And anything to -- you know, if we have to be
free on library cards or some things, you know, that's the
way it is. But if we can charge for certain things like
computer usage, boy, I think we should.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think that
while the -- the fee schedule's not the answer to the
current financial dilemma, it certainly needs to be looked
at. That's probably the only place in the city of Kerrville
10-4-05 jcc
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
where you can rent a meeting room for a day for $16. Now,
is that realistic in today's marketplace? Just by way of
example. So, I think all these things need to be looked at
and -- and adjusted accordingly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And then the other area
is, is there areas that we can cut back on service hours and
things of that nature? From the -- our administrative
assistant did a brief phone survey to a number of libraries
in the area. Very few stay open all day Sunday. It's not a
real common occurrence. Our public may like it being open
Sunday, but it's not the norm. Most libraries, from her
calling, or research, are not open all day Sunday. So, I
think that, you know, those are things that I really would
like to get recommend -- or, you know, figure out what the
target of dollars either raised through fees, or cut back
through service and see what that would mean. What would --
to raise -- to lower the expenditures, you know, $75,000 at
the library for both City and County, total budget -- or
total expenditures, what would that require? What would
they have to do on the service side?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, some
of these several ideas that I'm hearing about opportunities
to make improvements and reduce costs might be something
that the new Library Advisory Board could help us with. As
25 ~ we've -- as it's constituted in our contract, the advisory
10-4-05 jcc
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
board is going to have more responsibility and more
authority for providing input on library operations. And,
properly staffed, it might be the -- might be a vehicle for
pursuing some of these ideas.
MR. MEEK: Commissioner Nicholson, can you
illuminate me on what the changes are, set up with a
different board than what we have now? I'm not up to speed
on that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Well, I think
it's -- we've said in the contract that it says the Library
Advisory Board shall be created to provide oversight of
library operations. Oversight's a little stronger than what
I have seen that was done in the past.
MR. MEEK: And is there any particular reason
that the number went from nine to seven, I believe?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't think
there's any particular reason. Just a negotiating number.
MR. MEEK: Here is a question that I was
asked. Do I assume the existing Library Board serves until
replaced? Is there any discussion on that? That's the
normal situation.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think so, yes.
MR. MEEK: Because some believe they were
summarily dismissed.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I had one tell me
10-4-05 jcc
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that today.
MR. MEEK: So I --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We're scheduled to
deliberate about our two nom -- appointments next Tuesday,
so by that time we'll have a name or two, and the Friends of
the Library will name one.
MR. MEEK: So, it's serve until replaced? Is
that what everybody --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think so.
MR. MEEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: The other thing that
gives evidence that this new Library Advisory Board will
have more responsibilities or authority than they've had in
the past is that we specifically assign them the
responsibility of creating a budget for the library, and in
a certain time frame. So, this time next year, if the board
functions properly, the -- the County and the City will get
a -- a budget that the board members have had a hand in
creating.
MR. MEEK: All right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
MR. BOCK: Mr. Nicholson, the comment on
that, I think with all of our joint efforts that we have, I
think I would like to see on the library and some of our
other projects that we -- that we give each other ongoing
10-4-05 jcc
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
P & L's as the year progresses. We can do it on a monthly
basis, a quarterly basis, and that way there is no surprise.
As we see expenses rise 30 percent in one department, maybe
can direct our attention to those at that time, versus doing
them at the time that budgets are presented or a time that
we have to short-range it to solve the solutions; that we
all have it as we go, and see the projected budget of what
it should be and where are we at today and that sort of
thing. I'd like to see that happen with all of our --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I know
the County can do that very easily, and I -- I believe the
City can do that, because the airport is now receiving
monthly reports at our meetings, which are basically -- as I
understand, it's basically a push of a button. The report
can be generated on any entity in the City, and we can do
the same.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, whatever the
operating entity furnishes to their own people, they can
just furnish it to the other entity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
JUDGE TINLEY: Makes sense.
MR. COLEMAN: Our financial staff might
disagree with a punch of a button.
MR. MEEK: Right over here, we have --
MS. SEKULA: Maybe two.
10-4-05 jcc
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLEMAN: Two buttons. They do an
excellent job. And, Todd, I agree with you. I think it
goes back on Jonathan's earlier comments that -- that going
to all the various department heads, that's something to be
worked out. But with -- you know, within this monthly
financial reporting for these boards, I think it precludes a
lot of need for that that you guys have felt. You also
mentioned technical services being very high. Antonio, I
need to get -- gain a better understanding of the technical
services, books and records. It's 104,000.
MR. MARTINEZ: 114 was the request for
'05-'06.
MR. COLEMAN: And I know what that is; that's
library collections, adding new items and replacing worn
items in multiple formats.
MR. MARTINEZ: Books.
MR. COLEMAN: Give me more detail on that.
Is that something that can be juggled from year to year to
make up for shortfalls?
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, that's what we lend to
the public. That's all the materials the library collects
to lend; books, CD's, DVD's, everything in the library,
exclusive of what the Friends of the Library fund.
MR. COLEMAN: It's additions for that -- for
this particular budget year?
10-4-05 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
MR. MARTINEZ: That particular budget,
that's -- the biggest portion in the technical services is
Line Item 512, and that's for purchase of primarily books,
but also a lot of other formats.
MR. COLEMAN: What would the impact be to the
library if that were reduced on a continuing basis?
MR. MARTINEZ: We've been operating lowering
that number for many years, you know. We would just have to
buy less and lend less materials, have less new materials to
lend to the public.
MR. COLEMAN: Would it have a -- how
detrimental of an impact would that have for the --
MR. MARTINEZ: Well --
MR. COLEMAN: -- public?
MR. MARTINEZ: -- I think it's in the
perception of a user. You know, when we've had low years,
we've had numerous complaints about it. We've had a very
unhappy public over that issue, and not ever -- not
maintaining new materials.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Antonio, where do
computers come in?
MR. MARTINEZ: Computers, probably 98 percent
of them have been purchased with grants, not with city or
county funds.
MR. COLEMAN: You mean in the budget? Where
10-4-05 jcc
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
they appear in the budget?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. It's not under --
MR. MARTINEZ: I don't recall. I think we
year.
MR. MEEK: I have a question. Judge
mentioned earlier that y'all will be looking as time goes on
at possible places to add to your contribution to the
library budget. Is there -- do you have any sense of the
timing on that? I know Mr. Martinez is probably sitting
over there wondering what he needs to plan on -- on
budgeting. Well, what areas would have to be cut? Do you
have a sense of when you may know what your final amount
would be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think
it's -- I mean, in my mind, that's why I asked the question,
is I need information from Antonio as to what's going to
happen, you know, at several levels.
MR. MEEK: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because it depends. I
mean, is it -- you know, we're going to have to cut the
money somewhere. Does this mean we're going to, you know,
tell Road and Bridge they're not going to get another truck
10-4-05 jcc
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
or another piece of equipment that's budgeted right now? Or
are we going to go to some department and say, "You're not
getting your part-time employee"? I mean, we're not going
into reserves, so that means something has to get cut to do
this funding. So I need to know, from my standpoint, is it
more important to keep the library open all the hours we're
currently open, or can we cut back a little bit there and
save a dump truck? I mean, it's that kind of -- it's a
trade-off like that in my mind, 'cause we don't -- our
budget is set and our tax rate is set, and so we're going to
have to do an amendment. This money isn't falling out of
the sky. We have a budget that every penny is budgeted, and
we're pretty slim in some areas. We -- the areas that we
have some unknowns are on the indigent defense line item
that I mentioned earlier. We really don't know what that's
going to cost. We do a best guess talking to the District
Clerk and the Auditor and the District Judges' staff as to
how many court cases come in under this new indigent defense
area that we now have to fund. We put about 150,000, is my
recollection, into that.
MR. MEEK: Jonathan, what I heard you say,
you would rather address the possible cuts in service hours
before y'all determine if there's additional money to
contribute to the budget? Is that what you said?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I want to know what
10-4-05 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
the -- a -- if we have to cut $50,000 out of the library
budget -- or if Antonio does, what does that mean? What is
that going to do? I mean, I don't know right now if -- if
it's -- if -- you know, if that's going to mean we lose
accreditation, well, that's one thing. If it means we're
going to close for half a day Sunday, that's a totally
different thing.
MR. BENHAM: We're already closed half a day,
Commissioner, with all due respect. It's open from 1:00 to
5:00. That's not all day.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, close it all
MR. BOCK: I think, Mr. Letz, I -- what I
think you're saying is, if you had -- for example, you're
going out to purchase a car, you say, "I have $20,000. What
can I get for $20,000?" And that's -- I think that's what
-- what can we get for this amount of money?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
MR. BOCK: What services can we get? So,
then you can come up with a solution of, well, we can -- we
can fund this additional revenue here and remove it from
there, because I feel that that service is less important to
lose out than this service over here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, the
reality is that the -- that county taxpayers are both city
10-4-05 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
residents and non-city residents. They're telling me the
library is very important, but it's not the most important
thing in our budget. They expect that if we're cutting, you
know, Road and Bridge and we're cutting juvenile detention
and we're cutting the Sheriff, they think it's reasonable
for us to cut the library. That's what I'm being told by
all the constituents, city and county. And, you know,
there's no -- the way -- nothing is sacred. It can't be in
our budget. We have to look at it so we have to -- and I've
been elected to use my judgment as to where is the best
place to spend the tax dollars. A large portion of that,
you know, is going into the library. There is -- there are
areas that I've identified that we can certainly increase
funding. A fair amount from where we are, a fair amount
being in the $50,000, $75,000 range, but that has to get us
up to the 416 -- I mean, if we're in agreement that we're
paying for the books, the County's paying their part of the
books, there's going to be some real tough calls.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I want to comment on
that, Carl. I want to try to respond to your question, come
at it a little bit differently. To me, there are a couple
issues -- a couple items in this summary budget that we've
been presented that need a little discussion. Commissioner
Letz was concerned about the $104,000 listed as capital. I
think there's been a pretty decent explanation that, while
10-4-05 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
it may be listed as capital, it really is part and parcel of
what makes the library tick, books and manuscripts and
things of that nature. I personally don't have a problem
with it. But, for example, under maintenance and repairs,
or building construction, building and structures, is
$5,500. Now, if the building's not ours and so forth and so
on, is that a legitimate item to be in that budget, asking
us to fund 50 percent of it? So I guess what, really, we
need to do is just make certain that the items that we want
to fund or are expected to fund are the ones that really
should be there, and then we can figure out how much the
shortfall is, if anything. And I think I got to go back to
the question the Judge asked at the outset, and I don't mean
to be demeaning to anybody or prolonging the discussion, but
we read in the paper that the sky's going to fall if we
don't fund this. Now, I don't want to be a participant to
the library losing its accreditation. I'd like to know what
that means. You know, is the County the bad guy if we come
up $35,000 short? Is it really going to lose its
accreditation? I'd like to know that. If there are grants
that the -- that are in jeopardy of being acquired for
services or whatever, can we have a little explanation of
what that means?
MR. MEEK: I would love to ask Antonio to
give us his best anticipation of the likely scenarios. I
10-4-05 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
believe he's told me in the past that if you -- if your
budget is lower than it was the previous year, that they --
I don't know if they put on you a watch list or they're -- I
would love a short explanation of what you think is likely.
Not -- not worst case scenario, but likely.
MR. MARTINEZ: I thought Judge Tinley asked a
very important question, his very first question. I was
waiting for an opportunity to respond. The State Library
administers what is called the Library Systems Act, and
we're a member of that; we have participation in that. The
way they work, what they call maintenance of effort, is they
look at the last three previous fiscal years and average
those, and we have to meet that level of funding or lose
system membership.
MR. MEEK: May I ask you, is that automatic,
you lose system membership?
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes.
MR. MEEK: Or is it potential, you lose --
MR. MARTINEZ: Not for that part of it. On
that part of it, if you go below the three-year average, you
lose system membership.
MR. MEEK: And what does that mean?
MR. MARTINEZ: We lose participation in
several programs. For instance, the database program that's
linked on our web site. We lose grants from the regional
10-4-05 jcc
48
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
level, probably in the amount of actual dollars, maybe about
$10,000, but also services valued at anywhere from 100,000
to $200,000.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What kind of
services?
MR. MARTINEZ: One of them would be something
called Tutor.com, which would be a homework help thing
available on our web site. The consulting services from the
regional system to come and help us with computer networks,
with automated problems, inter-library loan stipends,
stipends, again, for the database service. All those
stipends would be lost.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: These are certainties
as you know them, just as you and I are sitting here?
MR. MARTINEZ: Yes. I've been -- yes, I've
been told.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or these are fears
that they might take place?
MR. MARTINEZ: I know -- I have requested a
letter from the State Library, and that should be
forthcoming, that will state their position on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My question is, what goes
into the averaging? 'Cause our funding from the County
jumps around quite a bit, so -- and it has, because that's
what the City's requested.
10-4-05 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
49
MR. MARTINEZ: The three-year average is
781,772.
JUDGE TINLEY: Current three-year average is
how much again?
MR. MARTINEZ: 781,772.
MR. COLEMAN: And how did you calculate that,
Antonio?
MR. MARTINEZ: State Library calculated that
for me.
MR. COLEMAN: That appears to be a lot more
than '03 and '04, '05-'06.
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, they look at what we
report in expenditures. And, again, what is local
expenditures may be a little different from just the
City/County funding. For instance, the Friends'
contribution is local funding also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it must -- I mean, it
must throw out items, because that number --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That number is higher
than where we are, at least of where the County is. We
weren't at that number last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, after the reserve
issues last year. But what he's saying is you look at
expenditures; you don't look at funding.
MR. MEEK: Is it -- it seems, Antonio,
10-4-05 jcc
50
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
really, it's very difficult for me to understand how we can
go from an exemplary library that is the toast of the state
to, if you spend one dollar less than your three-year
average, you automatically lose services, though our library
could be many, many times better library than a very small
one that continued to meet their expenditures. There's --
it is very difficult for me to understand that rationale on
the State's part.
MR. MARTINEZ: That is right. There is an
appeals process, but I have no idea what would, you know,
qualify for an exemption to that rule. But that is the
rule.
MR. MEEK: We -- we need to make some -- our
decisions need to be based on the best available
information, and --
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
MR. MEEK: -- and we're relying on you to
give us, you know, what is the most likely scenario here,
not worst case.
MR. MARTINEZ: Now, I don't have a final
number for '05, but that's going to raise that three-year
average. I don't know if our budget people over there have
a final number for what we've expended, but I'm estimating
if we spend 860,000 in the current year, the just-expired
fiscal year, then we're looking at that three-year average
10-4-05 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
51
to raise to 809,267.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm kind of
like you, Carl; I have a little problem with that. We're
letting somebody else, in effect, set our budget for us,
respectively, the City and the County. And it doesn't give
us any opportunity to talk about the operation, how we might
effect some efficiencies and so forth and so on. We're
letting some arbitrary panel -- we don't even know who it is
or what they're doing -- to tell us what level of funding we
have to generate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also, it penalizes you
for going out and doing any kind of, like, software
upgrades, which is an expense -- item that can be very
expensive. It's going to push your average up, and then all
of a sudden you're not going to be able to get, quote,
accreditation because your average is too high. Doesn't --
MR. MEEK: You're -- you're looking for a
letter to enumerate that for us?
MR. MARTINEZ: And, again, that's the reason
for the three-year average, to, you know, take into account
spikes where you have a one-year project. But, yes, there
should be a letter coming from the State Library that
officially states this position.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Related to this
25 ~ issue, it was reportedly -- if the City and County pursued
10-4-05 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
its plan of funding the library at only a total of $600,000,
that the library stood to lose $150,000 in revenues from
other sources, and I don't -- I can't find anywhere in this
year's or past budgets where those revenues from other
sources are accounted for.
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, the database connection
alone is valued at $249,000, so I -- I really underestimated
the value of what we're getting from system membership.
MR. MEEK: You're saying that would be the
fee charged --
MR. MARTINEZ: That would be the cost if we
bought that on our own.
MR. MEEK: -- for everything that you get
MR. MARTINEZ: We pay $1,300 a year for that
database connection, and it's valued at $249,000.
MR. MEEK: Wow.
MR. BENHAM: Judge, if I may suggest it, you
might want to involve State Representative Hilderbran in
this, because he chairs the House committee on libraries,
and he has said very emphatically to me, when I have
inquired about what he does up there, that he chairs that
committee on libraries and he does a lot to see to it that
the libraries get help from the State. And this concern
that's being -- I hear being raised, which I think is a
10-4-05 jcc
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
valid one, it would seem to me that you'd be perfectly
justified in asking State Representative Hilderbran to get
involved in this process, not only 'cause he's our State
Representative, but because he chairs the very committee in
Austin that deals with libraries.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's a good point,
Mr. Benham. I appreciate you pointing that out. Couple of
questions, and it -- this -- this aspect of the
participation of membership, as it were, is quite
enlightening. I can only make the observation that as you
upgrade, it compels you to continue to upgrade. It's a
never-ending cycle. The $94,000 that was the County's
portion of the -- of the reserve last year, was that counted
as part of the County's contribution to the library function
last year?
MR. MARTINEZ: I'll have to defer to the
budget office.
MR. BROOKS: Repeat that question one more
time?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. There was -- there was
a reserve account of -- of $188,000, it would turn out to
be, operations reserve. And, of course, the County's
portion would be $94,000. Was that particular -- were those
funds shown as a contribution to the library last year?
MR. BROOKS: Correct. I think what the --
10-4-05 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
the County did was, there was a return of equity, which was
that money that we had left over, the fund balance. We had
a very large fund balance which was doing the City and
County no good, so basically last year what we did --
actually -- yeah, last fiscal year, what we did is we
divided that equity between the two entities and handed it
back to them. What the County did was they -- they ended up
netting it for accounting reasons. Instead of handing a
check to the County, the County just netted that and paid us
the net amount.
MR. MEEK: I have a question along those
lines. Did that trigger a loss of our membership because we
paid less?
MR. BROOKS: No, because I think what Antonio
right.
MR. MEEK: Let me ask you this. The study by
the Friends identified some -- some good, you know, large
capital improvement costs, whether it be a new building or
redoing. Would that then mean you would have to spend that
same amount in future years to keep your membership? It's
just in the operations?
MR. MARTINEZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let me ask you this.
10-4-05 jcc
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
operations part of the budget at this level and make cuts in
the capital parts of the budget, would you be all right as
far as membership is concerned?
MR. MARTINEZ: The only capital we have
currently is books and library materials in this current
MR. MEEK: Oh boy.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me follow up with one to
Brian. For this immediate past year, then, was the County's
contribution 323,000 plus the 94,000, or 323 less the
94,000, but then including the offset of the 94?
MR. BROOKS: The County subsidy, it was -- it
was exactly 416,113, which was the same as we're asking this
year. What the County actually paid was 322,112. That is
plus the return of equity, that equals your $416,000. So,
essentially, the County did cut, but we netted it. Instead
of -- instead of the County contributing 416,000, what they
did instead was they contributed the net of 416,000 minus
the return of equity.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: See, what the Judge
is getting at, I look at the line item justification, 800,
General Operations, 405, Other Charges. It says Kerr County
reduced monthly payment instead of accepting one-time check
for return of equity. I think that would be -- would come
25 ~ as a surprise to the Auditor, that Kerr County did that.
10-4-05 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
56
MR. BROOKS: That was actually a decision by
Kerr County. Now, that was -- we notified Kerr County that
this was what happened; you know, we have a return of
equity. We decided -- they decided to net it out, as
opposed to changing it, getting a check in lieu of.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Help me understand
this, Brian. I want to follow up on the Judge's question.
The material that we were provided shows in '05, $242,497
subsidy from Kerr County; is that correct?
MR. BROOKS: I'm sorry, say it again?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 242,497.
MR. BROOKS: Thank you. That is correct.
MR. MEEK: Just put that toy away; she's got
MR. BROOKS: 242,497 is actual revenues
through June 30th of '05.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Through June 30.
Where would be the year-ending?
MR. BROOKS: Year-ending would be 322,112.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 322. And that 322
includes the $94,000 credit?
MR. BROOKS: That 322 plus the 94 equals the
total subsidy asked of the County of 416,113.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that's the 416
you're requesting for '06?
10-9-05 jcc
57
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. BROOKS: It was also the same request in
'05.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think, Brian,
what's -- the difficulty that we've got here is, this might
be a surprise to a number of us on the Court.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean,
maybe -- the Auditor was evidently was aware of it, but we
were very surprised that the City -- and we knew we budgeted
less than was asked last year, and we never heard a peep.
We thought, "That's weird." Didn't say anything. I mean,
that's our view.
MR. MEEK: Appreciate you pointing it out,
Jonathan. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But all of a sudden, what
the City did, okay, and what happened was, in reality -- and
I say, you know, we told you we're going to fund you.
That's sort of -- so we're going to take reserves, you know,
which the City had the right to do as managers of the
library. But we weren't really aware of the way it was
handled, but that's neither here nor there at this point.
There was a reserve and it wasn't used, and it went into
funding the library. But -- and that's why I think we were
all --
MR. MEEK: If you feel bad about it, you'd
make up the difference. (Laughter.)
10-4-05 jcc
58
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.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I guess -- I mean, is
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- potential service
reductions, or is it just a matter of we can fund what we're
going to fund and we'll go our own way? Which would be
potentially forced reductions, which is what I'm trying to
get -- I'm trying to get away from doing forced reductions.
I'm trying to get feedback to say, "This is what's going to
happen if we fund at this level or this level."
MR. MEEK: What you're asking is to identify
some areas that he would recommend reductions in force?
MR. BOCK: Priority levels.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Priority. Because, I
mean, I think our intent -- or my intent is clearly to
increase our funding, but I'm not sure we have the -- I'm
not sure it makes sense in my mind to fund it 100 percent
and cut things -- other things out of our budget somewhere.
MR. MEEK: Jonathan, could I suggest that you
give him a target number here? It's very difficult to do
what you just asked when he doesn't know what level of
reduction in expense you're talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: From the look that I've
done at the budget and just going through it and trying to
10-4-05 jcc
59
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'd say I see somewhere, with -- I don't want to say --
not difficulty, but I could probably find $50,000 to
$75,000, so we're looking at $50,000 to $75,000 in
reductions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think 50 is on the
low side, but we can probably get in that range. But that
gets us back to -- that gets us back to one of the items
particularly that's in there. If it weren't in there, it
also would reduce the County's share, and that has -- that
goes to this issue of building structures and so forth and
so on. It's not a big item, but it helps us get where we
need to get.
MR. MEEK: I hear you. Do you all -- do you
want to -- I mean, is this something, as a group, you're
looking for your group, our group, whatever, want to -- you
want to make that request of us now to look at that level of
reduction? Is that -- is that what I'm hearing informally?
Or --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My -- it goes back -- I
think you brought it up earlier as to Antonio needs to know
where he's going. I want to get this resolved. You know, I
want to know what we're going to fund.
MR. COLEMAN: We do too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that we -- I
10-4-05 jcc
60
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
agenda or not. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It could come in as a
budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we could deal with
it Tuesday, or two weeks from Tuesday. But I'd certainly
have every intent of getting this -- of letting y'all know
one way or the other the total additional amount that we
want to fund or are able to fund at the library as soon as
we can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we can come
in for budget amendments on Tuesday, budget amendments to
our budget, which will increase the funding.
MR. MEEK: Are you asking for a description
or a listing of the reductions by your Tuesday meeting? Is
that what you're asking for?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, yeah, I think
we'd kind of like to know, if we're able to come up with, on
the top side, $375,000, or 350 -- whatever, 350, 375, let's
be honest and tell us, what does it really mean in the
operation?
MR. BOCK: I'm -- excuse me. I might say,
too, if the County could come up with such a number that's
-- that's reasonable that the County could do, I would like
to look to my colleagues -- the City colleagues here and say
then I would like to see on our agenda looking at whether we
10-4-05 jcc
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can go back to our budget and see what shortfall is actually
there between what the County can do, and that we may find
that some of these priority cuts that we may want to fund
additionally to see if it's -- if that's possible.
MR. COLEMAN: And that's why I was going back
to this barter thing relative to --
MR. BOCK: Exactly. There may be something
somewhere that we can find to do this as a partnership, as
one helping the other, that -- that we may not have to lose
all these. And I think -- but I think it's going to come
from the County to give Antonio a pretty hard number, which
I know in our last meeting we were trying to get Antonio a
hard number so we -- so we knew, so we could start working
on a -- on a budget with those proposed changes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll tell you where
we were the other day, last Monday when we talked about
it -- where I thought we were, or could be. I believe that
the County's obligation was somewhere in the area of
$398,000 -- 398,613. And some budget amendments that had
been identified could have gotten us up to around 365, which
would have left a $33,000 shortfall. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I mean, I think
that, moving this along, why don't -- on Tuesday, we'll go
through our budget, figure out where we can find as much as
we can find, and not saying this is an absolute drop-dead
10-4-05 jcc
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
final number. And then it will be a difference there, and
then Antonio can look at that and say this is what that
means. And then we can go back, and y'all can go back, to
our budgets and say, you know, do we want that reduction or
do we want to cut somewhere else?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I like Mr. Bock's
shouldn't it?
MR. MEEK: I would say it would be helpful if
the -- if the Court would talk with the County Attorney as
far as the legality of the barter situation. I know you
can't use County equipment to improve someone's private
road, but I believe you --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Interlocal agreement,
we can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's one --
MR. MEEK: You can on interlocal --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- easy location, which
is the airport. The City does theirs -- I mean, I don't
want -- I'm not going to touch the mowing contract again,
believe me. But there's other areas out there on
maintenance and -- and other mowing that's done by the City,
herbicide along the fences and all that. We do those same
functions for our county roads, and that's an area that we
25 ~ can just commit to do a certain amount.
10-4-05 jcc
63
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. MEEK: Hypothetically, if you run over a
deer at the airport, do we have to pick it up? (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think so. I think the
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm going to bid on
MR. MEEK: All right.
MR. BENHAM: Your Honor, there were several
references made along the way to the Friends' study of
possible expansion of the library. If I could have about
another minute, I'd like to say our discussions, which are
by no means complete, but what we've discussed, and what we
discussed when we decided whether we want to spend all that
money on the study, did not envision coming to the County,
and quite possibly not to the City either, for money for
capital investment. Previously, when we were able to get
money for expansion of the library, improvement of the
library, such as the wheelchair ramp in front and some other
improvements that were made, we and some other people -- I
don't want to sound like Friends are the only ones who did
it. Commissioner Williams certainly had a hand in it. We
got most of that money from the Economic Improvement
Corporation.
Now, the County did, as you said, put up some
10-4-05 jcc
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of it. We got most of that money from the Economic
Improvement Corporation, and we've since gotten most of the
money that -- for the purchase of property that I referred
to earlier from private foundations; Peterson, the Cailloux,
and the Butt Foundations, primarily. There were some
smaller donations. So, I don't want to scare you with talk
of expanding the library if it carries the implication that
we'd be coming back to you gentlemen for the money to do
that. We would make every effort to get that money from the
Economic Improvement Corporation and from private sources.
Now, if the City and County wanted to give us some money as
well, I'm sure we wouldn't turn it down, but you wouldn't be
the primary objects of the fundraising that the Friends, at
least, would be involved in for any expansion.
One of the things we've urged for years, and
the money wasn't there to do it, is that that balcony, which
is wasted space now, be enclosed to provide more room for
reference and reading. A lot of the reference and reading
space has been turned over to computers. Enclosing that
balcony would solve two problems there, and we'd like to see
the money spent -- some money spent on that. But, again, we
would go to the E.I.C. and private foundations for that
money, as much as we could get. We wouldn't start with the
County Commission and the City Commission. And I just
wanted to say -- the Council, excuse me. I just wanted to
10-9-05 jcc
65
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 sure that there isn't a misunderstanding about the
Friends' role and the Friends' vision on that particular
project, and I appreciate your time.
MR. MEEK: Thank you, Joe.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. It does
point to the need for us to get on the same page, because in
the future, if the library facility is expanded, it seems
obvious to me that the purpose is to expand services, and if
expanding services is going to expand utilization and expand
utilization, you're expanding personnel costs and all those
things that are corollary to that, so we need to get on the
page and know where we're going.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other question. I
meant to bring it up earlier, and this is kind of -- well, I
think we're all aware that the history center and genealogy
-- whatever that word is, that center.
MR. BENHAM: Genealogy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Genealogy Center is a 100
percent city function, and they own the building and they do
all that. When I read through the backup, there's two
references under this contract to personnel, I guess, that
are coming under this budget, which I don't think is
appropriate. Under the Administration heading, the first
sentence talks about administering and supervising history
center, path source, Genealogy Society. Then under Patron
10-4-05 jcc
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Services, there's talk about -- under the fourth bullet,
about, you know, the -- collection was moved over to the new
library -- to the new history center, and that it's staffed
entirely by volunteers. Both of those lead me to believe
there has to be supervision somewhere, and I presume that's
Antonio or the City Manager. If that's the case, his salary
needs to be broken out accordingly. That's just the way
it's done for other things, other functions under the
airport contract.
MR. DAM S: Do you want us to add
administrative fees, then, to that library fund? Which are
not in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I just
think that we've been told all along that we're not to
participate in any way with that building. And, you know,
we've gone round and round on this issue. That's just a
matter of -- I think we need to be real clear on that point,
that we're either participating or not participating.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin said he
had a grasp of everything that occurred today and what
needed to be done --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kidneys.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- on a going-forward basis
from here. So, that being the case, I think we're probably
through for today.
10-4-05 jcc
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. WAMPLER: Before we get out, I want to be
clear. We're -- then we're waiting for you all to give us a
number so that we can provide Antonio the hard number, so
that he can tell us what impact that's going to have on
library operations? Is that where we're at?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. WAMPLER: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way I
understand it, Councilman.
MR. BOCK: Judge, in closing, I'd like to
announce to the Commissioners and Judge that Mr. Hoffman
will be -- our new City Manager will be reporting to work on
the 17th -- is that correct? -- on the 17th of this month.
So, we're very excited about that, and I'm real excited to
have him coming aboard, and I think you're really going to
enjoy working with him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad to hear
that. I want to express my appreciation to all members of
City Council for being here today.
MR. MEEK: I want to express my appreciation
to Don for filling in as our Interim City Manager also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Being nothing further, we will
stand adjourned from our end of it.
MR. MEEK: City Council will adjourn also at
10-4-05 jcc
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
(Joint County/City workshop was adjourned at
3:02 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 7th day of October,
2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ____ _ ~~ ---- -
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
10-4-05 jcc