1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
and
KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
Joint Meeting - EMS Contract
Friday, August 19, 2005
10:00 a.m.
Commissioners' Courtroom
Kerr County Courthouse
Kerrville, Texas
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, Councilperson, Place 2
DAVID WAMPLER, Councilperson, Place 3
DON DAVIS, Interim City Manager
V
O
00
Q
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 Friday, August 19, 2005, at 10:00 a.m., a joint
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and Kerrville
City Council was held in the Commissioners' Courtroom, 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 call to order the joint
meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and the City
of Kerrville City Council. This is a special meeting posted
for this date and time, Friday, August the 19th, 2005, at
10 a.m. It's a few minutes past that now. We do have a
quorum of the Commissioners Court present. All members of
the Court are here. Present from the City Council -- at
present, we do not have a quorum. Mr. David Wampler and
Mr. Carl Meek are representing the City of Kerrville at this
time, and I think there are other City staff members present
as probably resources in connection with this, if I'm not
mistaken. The posted agenda item for the Kerr County
Commissioners Court is to consider and discuss an EMS
contract -- the EMS contract and take appropriate action
thereon, so I will open it up with that. I would note that
we have some participation forms, and at the appropriate
time, I will inquire of those individuals if they wish to
speak and give them that opportunity.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a question.
a ie os 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
(Several people entered the courtroom.)
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's where you
belong, Mr. Davis.
MS. DAMS: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don, how are you doing?
MS. DAMS: Sorry we're late.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a question,
Commissioner Baldwin?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I do. Are we open,
ready to go?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, we're ready to
go.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just have one
question about the -- about the contract, and that's the
issue of -- of the purchase of the ambulance. And hopefully
we can get -- if I can get through my question, I may get up
and leave and go watch Tivy scrimmage. The -- my question
is, is when the ambulance is purchased, half by the City and
half by the County, will the County's name be on the title
along with the City's? And then, next year or the year
after, if the County decides to do something new and
different and pulls out of the contract, does the County get
our half of the ambulance? I mean, do we get tires and
motors, or the box, or what part of it is -- do we get?

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
And, when we get it purchased, I'd like to come over and use
it every once in a while to go drive around the county and
look at the county roads. You guys are welcome to ride with
me if you want to.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only if it's posted.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only in a posted meeting.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Posted meeting, yeah.
We can do that. But I guess my real question --
MR. MEEK: If I might interject --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- is the ownership of
the ambulance. Is our name going to be on the title?
MR. MEEK: If I could say something, Buster,
I hope you're not in that ambulance in this next year,
because if you are, you're probably going to be in a prone
position.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I want to drive. I
want to drive it.
MR. MEEK: Hope that's not the situation.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Me, too. But I want
to drive; that's the only way I want to get in it. So, I --
you know, I know that I'm being cute and all that, but
that's a real, live question. What happens to the ownership
of the ambulance, if we're buying half of it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it goes to
9-19-OS jc~
5
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the question that the City Manager raised, in that it has to
do with ownership or partnership versus being a client for
services. And if we're a client for services, I think there
necessarily buy the equipment, but we might pay for it
through the rates somehow. But -- in terms of rate
structure over the long haul. But there's also another
analogy, and that has to do with the library, and the County
doesn't own the building or the facilities or the equipment,
but we do participate in the operational expenses. And so,
you know, I think there are some analogies there, and there
might even be a strong case to be made that the County
shouldn't be participating in the outright or direct
purchase of equipment through capital recovery which is
proposed in the -- in the City's contract offer. So, I
think it's one of the issues that's kind of a sticking point
that probably ought to be talked about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the issue -- and
I've talked to both Carl and David one-on-one about most of
what	I'm	going	to say today,	probably.	But the --	if	you go
back,	it'	s very	difficult to	take EMS	or fire, some	of	these
things, and do them 100 percent as a contract -- as you do
in the private sector, a contract you're kind of running in
the private sector. These are not services that are readily
available. And it's -- you know, I understand the desire to

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
run it as a -- as the City does what they want and they send
us a bill, but there's problems with that, in my mind. And,
one, when it was started, as I understand the EMS -- and
work. And I think the County and the City -- and I wasn't
around -- decided that the City-run system or City-operated
system was certainly the best. A contract was negotiated.
There was a subsidy intended at that time from the County,
and it was just left alone for way too long, and that's how
we got where we are today.
So, you know, to me, it's very difficult to
say it's just a -- well, it's been very difficult the way
the City has reacted to our -- to the original proposal and
our counterproposal, because, for example, I have asked for
information and I haven't been able to get it because I'm
asking for things that are -- I've been told by the City
Manager that these are things related more to
administration, and that's really not on the table; that's
the City's department. I think David's mentioned the same
basic concept in that, you know, we shouldn't be concerned
about what the administration costs are and the collection
costs and all the other costs; that we should just say yes
or no based on the amount and the number that we're being
e-i9-us ~~~

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
given. And I -- I just have a real hard time with that
concept, that I can't ask whether -- when it's public
information, especially, and get an answer as to what the
breakdown of administration costs are.
So, I don't -- I think it's very difficult to
operate anything jointly with the City and the County in a
manner like the City wants to do this. And I think it was a
good idea; I think we were all in a meeting of the minds a
year or so ago. "Hey, let's try to -- maybe this will help
our relations." But I think it's just real difficult to
operate governments like you do in the private sector there,
and in that regard, you know, it's been very difficult for
us to give proposals back to the City in the way they
evidently wanted the proposal to come back to the City, you
know. I listened at our first meeting -- joint meeting that
we had with the City Manager and David Wampler, and listened
to it, and the problems that I heard is that it costs more
to run ambulances into the county. Okay, I accept and
believe that. Collections are running around 75 percent,
which everyone thought is good. And then there are issues
with the disallowables and reimbursements and collections
and all that, that side of it.
Our proposals to the City said let's
charge -- both proposals, you know, different ways of doing
it -- said let's charge more for runs into the county that
fl- l A U 5 j c c
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
cost more. Lets see if we can get the county people at
least payinq more pay-as-you-go. Let's see if we can get
accept our offer or not." I just don't understand that. I
mean, we are -- our last proposal even offered to take
billing completely out of it and we'd take that over
ourselves and leave the service exactly as it is. I have no
problem paying what it costs, and if it's close to 50 -- I'm
not a person that splits hairs. If the run time, which is
the basis of most of the operations, most of the dollars, is
roughly 50-50, fine; 50 is fine with me.
But billings are an example that are clearly
driven by volume, not run time, and I don't know why the
County should be asked to pay for 50 percent of the whole
billing structure when we're only using maybe 25 percent,
based on the numbers we've been provided by the City. So,
this just didn't make sense to me. And what I have
concluded, and I've told -- I think -- I know I told David
this, that it appears to me, after our second rejection of
our counterproposal, that the former City Manager who put
together the proposal decided how much money they wanted and
created a proposal that matched -- that brought in that
tl-19-OS 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
9
amount of money. And nothing's on the -- I mean, nothing is
open for negotiation, and I just have a -- a difficult time
with that, and that's kind of where I am.
And I guess the final thing I'll say is I've
taxation by residents of the city, 'cause they also pay
county taxes, and because of that, we shouldn't object to
having to fund a little bit more than 50 percent out of the
budget. That wasn't actually said, but that was the
implication that I received when I've been told that. That
being said, I'll make a -- in my -- just from me, another
proposal to the City. Join us in forming a county-wide
emergency services district that will solve that problem
once and for all. If you all commit to doing that today, I
think we'll be well on our way to solving the problem. That
will completely solve the issue of double taxation, and it
doesn't hurt the problem. I mean, y'all can still have your
own EMS service if you want; it can be run through an ESD.
It can be a county-wide system. It can be structured any
way you want, but if we do an emergency services district,
that would totally solve the problem of that double
taxation. It's not going to solve the problem of me wanting
information from the City.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay, Commissioner,
8-19-OS ~ICc
10
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I want to take a shot at it now. I think if we agree on one
wash out. And before I say what I think the principle ought
to be, I want to say that, come October 1, I intend to --
there's going to be EMS services throughout the county.
I'm -- that's not at risk here, from my point of view. That
we begin this contract where the revenues equal the costs.
There was no cost to either entity when the contract began.
Sometime after that, costs accelerated more rapidly than
revenues did, so if we could agree to a user-pay principle,
that we're going to raise our rates to a point where costs
and revenues are neutral, then all the rest of this would
wash out. There wouldn't be anything else to talk about.
Now, when you think about doing that, the
demand for these services is inelastic. There are -- there
are currently a few people who choose not to use the
service. They'll go to the hospital by private car, and for
two reasons -- one of two. One, they think they can get
there quicker; it's better, or they want to avoid the cost.
If we'll just simply increase those rates to a point that it
would be -- a significant increase to a point where the
revenues equal the costs, then all these other issues will
wash out, and the taxpayers will save $400,000 a year. I
want to save the taxpayers $400,000 a year. That's all.
e-ia-os 1~~
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
29
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's
important to note, particularly for the public at large who
has a major concern about -- about this issue, that
Commissioners Court has never once been critical of the
level of service that's delivered by the ambulances once
they are dispatched to pick up a patient and deliver them
wherever. That's not the issue at all. The preponderance
of the calls that I've had from people who have -- who want
to buy into this dispute or this argument or debate,
whichever -- whatever you want to call it, are -- have to do
with the administrative side, not the service side. And
people tell me claims are mishandled, they're miscoded, the
billing process needs some attention, and the follow-up to
the billing process definitely needs attention, because
there's money being left on the table. And if there's money
being left on the table on the front side of the
administrative equation, that hurts the client. That hurts
the patient. And so I think that's something that we have
wanted to see addressed, but thus far, we haven't had any
indication that anybody was willing to address those
particular issues. But I just want to make it perfectly
clear that we are not critical of the service that's
delivered. The folks that do that and drive that box, pick
up that patient and take them where he or she -- wherever
they go, they do an absolutely super job.
8-19-OS jcc
12
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a --
MS. DAMS: Jonathan, I've got copies.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- a technical question that
it's probably going to take the Chief to answer. What is
the in-service amortization on one of those units? Five
years? Three years? What's the normal life of those?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, when we first took over
EMS, we thought an ambulance would last about five years.
We discovered that we're putting more miles on than we
thought. And the hills in this area, especially when we go
back and forth to San Antonio, are putting a lot more wear
and tear on the ambulances, so we try to replace them about
every four years. Because of the budget constraints and
some problems we've had with the revenue, we haven't been
able to do that. In fact, we've got one ambulance now that
has over 200,000 miles on it. We have another one that has
about 150,000 miles on it, and those need to be replaced.
And we haven't been able to replace those units, because
there hasn't been enough money in the budget to do that.
Now, the three ambulances that we replaced prior to that
were through grants. The E.I.C. purchased one, and the
Peterson Foundation has purchased two. So, yeah -- so we've
been having problems replacing the ambulances, and we really
need to replace them now. And one clarification on that
$37,000 that's in there. That's only a fourth of the cost
e iy-os ~co
13
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of that ambulance. The other 50 percent was going to be
paid for out of our transfer service, and 25 percent out of
the emergency service, and 25 percent we're asking for y'all
to help pay for part of that. As far as ownership of the
ambulance, I don't think there was any intention of any
ownership on that ambulance. And if Buster wants to drive
an ambulance, all he has to do is become an EMT, because
they won't allow a private citizen to drive one. And we
have a class coming up pretty soon, Buster, if you'd like to
get in that. And I hope to never see any of you guys in
those ambulances, because --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I've been in.
MR. HOLLOWAY: -- if you are, you're going to
be in some serious business. But if we do pick you up, I
promise you, you'll get the best service there is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One of the things that I
have been confused about all along is -- and I never -- in
the proposal and in how EMS is run, how -- my understanding
is that the transfer portion, which are two ambulances that
are kind of off-duty --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- are out of this
contract.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whereas the -- the two
B-19-OS icc
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
that are on call all the time are in the contract. Is that
correct?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct. What we
decided to do -- because most of the calls that are made in
the county are emergency calls, so we thought it wouldn't be
fair to put the transfers in there, so we compared apples to
apples. All the calls are emergency calls that are in this
proposal in the city limits and the emergency calls into the
county, and that's where that came from.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: How did the --
MS. DAMS: However, the revenue from the
transfers are in here.
MR. HOLLOWAY: In y'all's proposal, that's
correct.
MR.
subsidy to the EMS
for in this propos
MR.
not. I mean, the
MR.
the --
WAMPLER: The transfer is a direct
budget, so those numbers are accounted
31.
DAMS: But the revenue is; the calls are
-- the patients are not.
HOLLOWAY: Well, in the expenditures of
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The calls are not, but
the --
mileage?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What about the
a-iy os hoc
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
MR. HOLLOWAY: No, mileage is not in there.
MF.. WAMPLER: None of the measurement metric
for the purposes of trying to determine runs in the city
versus runs in the county are in the numbers that you have.
However, the budget information you have accounts for the
dollar --
MR. HOLLOWAY: The total dollars.
MR. WAMPLER: -- the total dollar amount,
including transfers. So, in other words, transfers account
for a subsidy. Whatever revenue EMS earns as a result of
the transfers goes into the budget and really counts as a
subsidy for emergency services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the -- on the
expenditure side, the -- the EMT's and the techs and all
that are in or not?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, they're in the overall
budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because they're -- I
mean, from a -- okay, that answered it.
MR. HOLLOWAY: 'Cause if you took the
transfers completely out of all this, then the shortfall
would be a whole lot greater than it is. Be almost twice
what's in the --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, but I guess my
point was -- and the -- I don't think it really changes a
8-19-OS jcc
16
1
2
3
4
5
F
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2L
23
24
25
whole lot the way you're telling me it's being done. From a
volume standpoint and statistics, they're not in there, but
the operational part is in there.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the revenue's in
there, and that's -- that makes sense.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Just -- just to round
out, the problems that I have in trying to find a solution,
and I sincerely hope you can do that, have to do with a
couple things which I believe really are the policy of City
Council. And I clearly understand why you might set policy
the way you do for the operation of your departments, but
when we're doing business on an interlocal agreement, I
wonder why that policy should transcend over and be imposed
on the other party. And that goes to not only equipment,
but it goes to the 5 percent fund balance requirement. If
this -- if the subsidy the City is looking for from the
County were absent, if we were to take out the piece of the
5 percent fund balance requirement, which would be about
$43,000, $44,000, plus the 37,5, that you're asking for on
equipment, I'd be on your page right now.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess another -- I'd
like to ask a question to -- I don't know if it's to someone
in the City. It's been obvious that you haven't liked the
~-1G US jcc
17
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
L1
22
23
24
25
way we've done our proposals up to date, because they get
rejected with no comment other than the original proposal is
on the table, so it's been hard for me to figure out what we
should try to do. Are you looking for us to give you a flat
dollar proposal back? Is that -- you know, and -- or are
you just looking to say if it's not 200,000, we're not doing
it?
MR. WAMPLER: Speaking for myself, I'm not
asking -- we did ask, and I did ask you, Jon, for a
counterproposal at our first meeting, and -- and we received
those and considered those and rejected both of them. And
at this point, I'm not asking -- I'm not expecting you to
give us a counterproposal with regard to a specific dollar
amount, and that's really never been my intention. My
intention in asking for a counterproposal had more to do
with the fact that during our last meeting, there was no
unanimity in terms of how to measure the service and
allocate costs to that measurement standard, and I was
interested to see how you all as a group would look at what
your counterproposal was with regard to assigning costs to
the service.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I think unan -- and
I can't say the word, whatever it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Unanimity.
MR. MEEK: That "U" word.
fl-19 OS lcc
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that "U" word.
MR. WAMPLER: There was no consensus.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but two proposals
came out, and it's -- we are focusing on basically the --
the reserve issue, 'cause we keep our own reserves.
MR. MEEK: What reserves does the County
shoot for?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We deal --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 25 percent of the
overall budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Of our operating budget.
MR. MEEK: But you would object to a
5 percent on EMS?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah, because it's
not going in our budget; it's going to yours.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, the difference is
we're already having --
MR. MEEK: Well, is it going into our budget,
or is that a -- that would carry over into the beginning of
the next year's budget. It wouldn't be 5 percent each year.
That would be a one-time carry over, I would think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess the -- well --
MR. WAMPLER: We have a policy of trying to
-- trying our best to maintain a 5 percent fund balance in
all of our budgets, in our general fund, our EMS fund, golf
3-19-OS 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
course fund, what-have-you. And, to some extent or another,
we're successful, depending on the operations of that
individual fund. From the standpoint of EMS, despite the
fact that it is a government service at this point, the fact
providing a service. We have to stay equipped and -- and
have adequate personnel to provide the service required both
in the city and the county, and that 5 percent fund balance
is a hedge against unforeseen billing issues, lower
reimbursement going forward from the government, a crash of
a vehicle that we have to replace. Yes, we're insured, but
it's -- it's nothing more than a balance as a -- as a
cushion or contingency in this operation of that operation
or business, however you want to put it. And to the extent
that that's going into our budget and we're somehow in
control of that, that's absolutely correct, but we have
gotten behind. As the chief said, we have equipment now
that needs to be replaced, and that equipment replacement is
a critical piece of the operation to maintain the level of
service that we provide.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if there was -- if
the intent for the reserve is to have a -- you know, to
build a balance to use for things in the future, and the
County -- and this is a one-year deal for us, do we get half
the reserve back at the end of the year?
e-iy-us ~cc
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
MR. WAMPLER: No, and it doesn't necessarily
have to be a one-year deal. We'll have a one-year contract;
we'll look at it again next year, but the 5 percent fund
balance, whether we fund it ourselves out of our own
operations or the County and City jointly fund it going
forward for joint service, is something that we're going to
continue to maintain.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, but what I'm saying
is that, I mean, the County is, I think, clearly in motion
in going towards an emergency services district in the
county, and we hope to cover the city as well, because I
think it's a benefit to all the taxpayers. But, say, two
years from now -- because it takes some time to get that set
up. If we decide to opt out, then we should get half of
that fund balance back, or at least what we've put into it.
MR. WAMPLER: If you had engaged --
(Cell phone rang.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a $25 fine,
Carl.
MR. WAMPLER: If you engage a private
service -- you know, private EMS service today, you would,
in essence, be paying into a fund balance of some sort, or
profit that you wouldn't get back, even if it was a one-year
contract. This is clearly not profit. But in the context
of private enterprise, you would be paying that anyway.
e-ia us ~~~
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I disagree.
MR. WAMPLER; We11, are you saying that if
you contracted with a private carrier, there wouldn't be
profit involved?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there is --
MR. WAMPLER: There wouldn't be a fund
balance? There couldn't be a contingency fund built into
that business that you would be paying into?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It may be hidden in
there, but it's not a direct --
MR, WAMPLER: Well, that`s the difference
between private entities and public entities. We've shown
you where the numbers are. You would still be paying it.
MR. MEEK: I would say we'd want to sure keep
it a 5 percent fund balance. Last thing -- when you're
dealing with a critical emergency service, we wouldn't want
to have to part with one of those boxes because we ran out
of money. People's lives are at stake. I think that needs
to be taken into consideration.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't mind a fund
balance in the agreement, but I think the County -- when we
opt out of it, we should get part of it back. I don't -- I
don't see the reason why you would want to keep -- I mean,
the County is giving a -- putting our reserve dollars in the
B-19-US icc
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
City's fund. Why wouldn't we get it back out if -- when we
opt out of the contract, if we ever do?
MR. WAMPLER: As far as an emergency services
district goes, and -- and the County's intention to pursue
that option, I'd remind everybody here, including the
Commissioners, that we notified you one year ago of our
intention to renegotiate this contract. So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, as I told you, Dave,
we received the contract in May, and there was some delay in
the Commissioners Court --
MR. WAMPLER: We told you a year ago of our
intention to renegotiate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we've asked for
information starting in January.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, David, the same
thing applies to the library; we haven't had a response back
from you either, so that's kind of a quid pro quo.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me, if I might -- we've
had some individuals who have expressed a desire to be heard
and have their viewpoints taken into consideration here, and
I'd like for them to have the opportunity. Mr. Jim Murphy?
Be pleased to hear from you, sir.
MR. MURPHY: I've got a cheat sheet here,
'cause I'm not the best long-term speaker, and I'm not going
to speak very long anyhow. But I'm Jim Murphy; I live at
H-19-05 ~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
23
203 Riverhill Boulevard. First thing -- Carl just brought
this up. Have you thought about what this pertains to? The
whole thing pertains to saving lives. And in this city and
this community -- and I know you're all well aware of this,
but prior to 1994, we had the sorriest EMS service. I was
on the City Council at that time. They had untrained
personnel, poor equipment. They had a book that thick that,
when they drove out in the county, that they had one guy who
sat there on the righthand side and flipped pages trying to
find out where they were going. That's what's going to
happen to you if you put a new service in. You're not going
to get somebody that comes in here and can drive to -- to
peer Trail just like that, like these people that presently
are on the city service. But they had two dilapidated
ambulances that they used. They were always having problems
with equipment. They were extremely slow to respond, and
they didn't have a responder program at that time, which you
have now, and it's a good program.
City Council was concerned about this, so
Council and Joe Herring, who's here in the back seat, and I
drew up a plan for an EMS program manned by the Kerrville
Fire Department. It has been refined over the years
considerably, and is now one of the best in the state. I
know that you're all aware of this, 'cause it has already
been mentioned. Depending on the outcome of this meeting
-io-os icc
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
today, there's insufficient time to have the County set up
an EMS program, and I have two proposals. One is to extend
the contract for a period of three to six months. There's a
group of us four -- four that are willing to volunteer our
service as mediators to try to work out an amicable solution
if you can't come up with one, and that's myself, Ray
Lehmann, Gordon Morgan, who are former County Commissioners,
and Joe Herring and I, who are former City Council members.
Do you have any questions? Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. We appreciate
your input today. Mr. Morgan. Gordon Morgan.
MR. MORGAN: I guess part of our concern is
the fact that, as gray-haired and as old as we are, we -- we
may need this service, so that was one of our concerns. The
other thing is that I, unfortunately, had the opportunity a
year or two ago to have the service. And the service was
great, but it was unfortunate that my wife got so sick. So,
we were involved in transfer -- we were involved in transfer
from the hospital here to San Antonio, and from San Antonio
back, two different ambulance services. It gave me some
insight into how the system was working. And there seemed
-- I can say that I pursued the issue of being refused
payment from Medicare on some services, and I pursued it and
did obtain the money that -- that was not being pursued by
the administration part. And there are a lot of reasons for
8-19-n5 j~c
25
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
that, and it's a very difficult thing, but if you do pursue
it, you can get it.
And probably the other thing is that, in some
of our sitting down and -- and, as old men do, talk about
how they can solve all the young fellows' problems, it seems
that one could designate areas from the center part of the
city, and give the area out in the very west as one -- A or
B or C, whatever number; one for the east, one for the
south, and one for the north. And then you could have the
central one in the middle, and could you assign those as
areas, and then set a rate based upon each of those areas
and then charge a flat different rate in each of those
areas. And that would make up for the difference between a
run in town and the time and the gasoline and that sort of
thing, and would seem pretty fair. So, one could assign
rates, and I think that would help solve this problem.
The other thing is, it's obvious there seems
to be two issues; one, the immediate issue to solve the
problem of having service continue, and then a long-term
plan that's based on putting all of the figures that are
there, put those all together, look at them, hopefully as --
as unbiased as possible, and try to come up with something
that seems reasonable and workable and fits in with what
costs are at other places, and the decisions about a reserve
fund, whether it's 5 percent or 2 and a half percent for
B-19 OS lcc
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
each entity or whatever. Those things should easily be
worked out with -- with just unbiased -- sit down and come
to something that'll work for the citizens. And that's just
basically it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Can I ask you a
question, Dr. Morgan?
MR. MORGAN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When you used the
service, would you have been willing to pay 60 percent more
than it costs at that time?
MR. MORGAN: I -- sure, I would have. But
there are some that probably, you know, don't have the money
to afford the other 60 percent. If 60 percent is required
and that's necessary, then it has to be. I -- I do not know
what the percentage is, but I would -- I would predict
there's probably 10 or 15 percent of the billings that --
that are collectible, that at this time are not collectible.
If you remember San Antonio, on their tax issues down there,
they hired a law firm -- and there's some question on that,
but they hired a law firm to do collections for them. But I
think that if -- if that were -- was set aside as -- as
important to collect the money, then -- and you could
reduce -- I don't know what those gross amounts are, but
10 percent of $1 million or whatever it might be is a
significant figure, and it certainly would well pay for the
8 19-u5 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
salary of some person that would devote their time and
effort to get that collection done for the people in the
community, as well as for the service. Any other questions?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Thanks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir. Thank you.
We appreciate your input. Mr. Scott Gross.
MR. GROSS: Morning. I'm Scott Gross. I've
lived in the county since 1990, been a First Responder since
1999. In 1985, my wife and I brought Church's Chicken to
town. It's a fowl operation. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I didn't hear that.
You brought what?
MR. GROSS: Church's Chicken.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Oh.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: He said it was a fowl
operation.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. GROSS: Thanks for interpreting; I
appreciate that. I only mention that for one reason, and
that is when we instituted delivery, we hired the drivers of
the former ambulance company, for two reasons. One, they
kind of knew the territory, and two, they really needed the
money. In business there's a saying that you can have
quality, price, and service; pick any two. It's hard to
have all three. And we have a quality service right now.
A 1 9- U .`, j C 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
28
The price we can talk about. We have a quality service
right now, and I think we need to keep it. we don't really
have a lot of alternatives, and the reason we don't is
because ambulance runs don't come on a regular basis. You
can't schedule them. Two nights ago I had a call at 9:18 at
night. It was an infant who was having epileptic seizures.
About 35 minutes later, we had another call. It was for a
suicide attempt. Now, if we had a county system -- or a
private system, which one of those runs would you have
sacrificed? If you need two ambulances on one side of the
county at the same time, you better have somebody located in
the city.
The most logical -- seemingly illogical, but
the most logical place to base a county-wide ambulance
service is in the city, and the reason is because you have
the ability to swing either way. I've seen three, even four
ambulances in one part of the county at one time. So, I'm
suggesting that to not come to an agreement would be
unconscionable. You can argue the little stuff. The big
stuff is, we're talking about saving lives. And as much as
I appreciate volunteers, since I am one, volunteers have a
tendency to be the bottom of the medical barrel. I know
when I attend a scene, I get out of my car -- of course, my
car now says "Sporty's Restaurant" on it. People can't tell
if I'm coming to save the day or cater the event.
B-19-OS lcc
29
1
L
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Laughter.) They do look at me, though, and half the time
they think I'm a doctor because I have silver hair and all
my teeth, which is a huge qualifier. But the point is
simply this; we have to have a decision, and this is based
on people's lives. Worry about the details -- and I don't
think a private service provider is what we`re looking for
here, because in order to get the quality, we're going to
have to pay the price. If you're going to pay the price,
you might as well pay the people who are already doing a
great job.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, I
like the ideas that I'm hearing, and I think that they're
reasonable. And I'm just as -- I'm not making this as a
motion, because I really -- well, I don't know if I want to
make a motion today or not, 'cause I notice the Council
that's here isn't a quorum, so we can't decide anything, but
I like the idea about extending the contract. And I would
be willing, individually -- not to speak for the four people
over here -- even to pay the amount the City's requesting
for three months, prorated, as long as the City will
seriously enter into negotiations with the County to look at
the billing system, the rate structure, and establishing an
emergency services district. If they will commit to
seriously look at those and work with the County to try to
better the system, those three areas, you know, I'm all for
H-19-OS 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
paying what y'all want the for three months. And, hopefully
in a three-month period, we'll have a direction we're going,
and adjust the contract at that time that -- if both sides
agree.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd like to offer a
comment or two. I appreciate the comments of all the
gentlemen out there, and it is not my position that we
should be looking to go outside the county for service. I
think the service that's in here is good, and we should
continue that and find a way to make it work. We had
suggested, although it wasn't -- isn't -- I don't believe it
was in the formal proposal that we gave back to the City,
but we had suggested zones with different rates. I think
that really makes a lot of sense, because that -- that helps
you deal with the time -- time and mileage issues, loaded
mile issues and the time, and all that's good stuff. And
you do that by zones, and I think that's an excellent way to
look at it. But I think -- I think what we have to do today
is agree -- and I'm with Commissioner Letz on this. I don't
know if we're going to make -- do it as a motion today or
not, but we need to take care of the short-term while
working to -- to alter or amend or improve on the long-term
solution. I don't want to see Kerr County uncovered. I
don't want to see Kerr County going outside our geographical
borders for private service unless it is absolutely
a-iG-os ~~~
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
necessary and there's no way that we can resolve the issues
take out of their tax rate that which is appropriated for
emergency services and spread that cost all the way across
the county. To me, that's a win-win situation. And for my
support on this, I'm willing to go along those lines, and I
would like very much to see joint resolutions come out of
City Council and Commissioners Court setting up a task force
to do just exactly that, work out the details for an
emergency service district that covers as much of Kerr
County as is -- as humanly possible to do, and then work
together for the passage of that initiative with the voters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I might make a
comment, just to make sure everyone in the audience is
aware. An emergency service district doesn't mean there'll
board that will oversee it, and they r_an contract with --
you know, and I think the obvious way you do it initially
would clearly be to contract with the City of Kerrville to
provide the service county-wide. But then it's taken out of
a-i9-os ~~~
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
the City's budget and the County's budget; any subsidy is
funded, and decisions on the costs and things of that nature
are made by a board. That, you know, depends -- I'm sure
there's -- it can -- the makeup of the board can be agreed
upon, I would think, by the City and the County, but they
are one piece to that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to express
some reservations about an emergency service district, and
the same reservations would apply to any new taxing entity.
What I would expect to see if we created an emergency
service district or a library district or whatever is that
-- that they would collect an additional 400,000 or 500,000
a year, in the case of the EMS district, in taxes, or
another 800,000 a year, I guess it would be, for the
library, and then the City budget and the County budget
wouldn't go down. That would be additional taxes paid by
the taxpayers. If you give politicians money, they spend
it. And -- and the tax burden would increase by having a
special taxing district.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't have to be
that way, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Doesn't have to.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: My comment is, I
wanted to -- Mr. Murphy was talking about putting -- when
the emergency service was put in the fire department, I was
B 19 OS
33
1
7
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
25
even part of it a little bit before it got to you guys. I
was on the committee that -- that did the study and took a
hard -- peeked under the hood of the former provider, and we
drove to San Antonio and looked at numerous services and
just did a study. Of course, the former provider was
difficult to see what the real problem was when there was
probably two sets of books and -- total nightmare. And so I
was part of that committee that voted to ask you guys to put
together the program, move it into the City of Kerrville
Fire Department. Excellent move. Best thing we've ever
done, and I still agree with that. I think -- I still think
it's the best thing to do. So, because of that history and
my knowledge of that, I'm -- I'm not in favor of contracting
with any company to come in and service either, but I do
like Dr. Morgan's thought of forming a study committee of
you geezers. All four of you are well aware of -- I mean,
very in tune of what the program is and what it's been
about, the history of it, and where you think to go, and I
think it's always wise to include citizens to take a peek at
things like that, particularly when you have four guys that
know as much as anybody else in the county about what the
system does and what it should do. I really like that idea,
and I like the idea of contracting for three months until
you do that study, just to help government -- the two
government bodies dot the I's and cross the T's properly.
e-i~ ns hoc
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
And I just think that would be a wise thing to do for all of
us. It's not a hit on anybody. I just think it's a smart
thing to do.
MR. MEEK: I'd like to say something. First
of all, I'd like to ask a question of Raymond or Don,
whoever would like to respond. What are -- I would think
three -- a three-month extension would leave an awful lot of
questions in both of our budgets, and I would like any --
any feedback from either one of y'all, the difficulties that
might bring.
MS. DAMS: Well, it leaves us still with an
unknown factor. The -- I think the only thing that I know
we can do is just go ahead and prepare the budget on a
12-month basis.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What kind of basis?
MS. DAMS: Twelve-month. You know, and go
ahead and establish that, with the idea that after --
whether it's three months or six months or whatever the time
frame is, that you'd -- Council would be looking at possibly
some budget amendments, which is certainly legally provided
for, so you could do that. I might also add that I'm not
sure that three months would be an adequate period of time.
That may not be enough time, I guess, depending upon what
kind of structure is undertaken, to get all this done. So
that's a -- a two-bit editorial, I guess.
a-ie-os ~~~
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought the three
months could start on October 1.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think both
the Councilman and Don raise good points. I don't think
three months is enough time either.
MS. DAMS: Let me just say, I'm basing that
on a conversation that we had with a state agency out of San
Antonio that offered to help write some specifications and
do some of these sorts of things. And they were thinking
it, you know, would probably take three months just to kind
of formulate that, so you would have in addition, you know,
any sort of study, if, in fact, you were looking at going
out for proposals again, which may not be the plan.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But these are not only
geezers; these are our geezers. They can do it in three
months.
MS. DAMS: Fast-working geezers.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Fast-working geezers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I think if -- I
think the relationship should be extended, and it should
probably be extended for a 12-month period, 'cause that
coincides with our budget, and we can determine what that --
if we can get on the same page with the dollars. But --
'cause it's going to take more than three months to -- to
sort it out, if we want a task force, if you do joint
A-19-OS 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
29
25
resolutions and work out the details, and it's going to take
a good, long time thereafter, if we're on the same page for
an ESD, to properly inform and advise the public of what the
issues are and the reasons why it makes good sense, if it
does make good sense.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there's two
issues here, though, and I think the committee can
certainly -- if it's formed, can help on both. But one
issue is to look at the current -- the problems that I have,
I think Commissioners Court as a whole has, of the contract
on the establishing zones and some different -- and
billings, adjusting billings in the county and looking at
the collections and that whole system, and -- and looking at
how the breakdown -- whether it's truly equitable to break
every item out 50-50, or if it should be, you know, 45-55,
or if you should do 50 percent on this part and 25 percent
on this part. And I don't think those numbers -- it's not
that complicated to come up with numbers that way. I know
Councilman Wampler said I was picking and choosing; I don't
look at it that way. I mean, we're talking about two
categories or three categories, and I think those things can
be worked out in three months. And I don't -- like I said,
I don't have a problem with going with the requested subsidy
that the -- as asked -- as requested by the City for three
months, but I'm a little bit leery of going -- signing a
8-19-OS jcc
1
2
3
4
S
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
ZI
22
23
24
25
37
12-month contract committing to that subsidy that I have a
fundamental problem with the way it was derived.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- you know, there are a
number of items that probably we can point to on either side
of the fence where things were not done as well as they
should have, were not done in as timely a manner as maybe
they should have been. But I think we're -- we're maybe
looking at the wrong priorities for the subject we're
dealing with. I don't think cost is the primary priority.
Number one is quality of service when you're dealing with
emergency medical services and lives of our citizens,
particularly with our demographics that we have. The second
issue -- the second priority, I think, would be the
reliability and continuity of that service. You know,
mentioning that there are things that could have been done
differently or more information developed or -- or
refinements, efficiencies, rate structures, you can talk
about all those things at this juncture, but I think I'm on
the same page with Dr. Morgan.
I think we've got to look at -- we've got two
solutions to achieve; one's a short-term, one's a long-term
solution. And right now we got the short-term solution
ahead of us, and we've got an obligation to our constituents
and citizens -- a lot of whom are the same, as a matter of
fact -- to give them some peace of mind and comfort zone
a-is-os ~~c
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 they've got quality service, reliable service, and that
there will be no interruption in that kind of service. And
I think appointing a group such as Mr. Murphy recommended of
individuals who have prior governmental experience in both
the city and the county I think is a wonderful idea. I
don't think three months is adequate. I think it's going tc
take at least six to really take a hard look at it. I don't
want to tie their hands where they're looking at, do we
tweak the administrative costs? Do we -- how do we do rate
structures? Or do we look at an emergency services
district? I think until they develop all that information,
they're not going to have an idea what -- which way they
think is the best way to go. But in the interim period of
time, we owe it to the citizens of this county to give them
the appropriate assurance that they've got service in place.
Now, from a budget standpoint, if -- if
you're looking at a six-month, for budgetary purposes, you
just create an obligation twice that, because you're
budgeting for a year; you really don't have any other
choice. But what I don't want to have happen is that we --
we try and move forward on a -- on an organized basis in
that manner, and be in a situation where we -- we're not in
a position to go forward for some additional period of time
if it's necessary. But I -- I don't think the thing should
be cost-driven. The quality of service and the reliability
a-iA-us i~~
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
and continuity of service is what the citizens deserve. If
something else has to suffer, so be it, but we've got to get
there and we got to get there quick, and I don't think we
have the luxury of the time and the ability to put together
an outside service to come in here and even remotely
approach the level of service that we've got in place right
now. So, whether we like the position we're in or not,
that's where we are. We got to play the hand we're dealt,
and we need to -- we need to get in the game and get this
behind us so that the citizens know what we got.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I don't -- you
know, I don't disagree with you. Much.
(Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just daily.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Daily.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or often.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I guess my reason for
not wanting really to do -- and you didn't say -- I'm not
disagreeing with you. I think it was Commissioner Williams
who said 12 months, something like a 12-month period. If we
extend the contract for 12 months, we're going to be back
here next August, same thing again in the middle of budget
when we're both rushed if we don't set a deadline, like a
six-month period, to have this resolved and implemented, you
know, from a -- this -- I'm talking about the
8 19-05 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
administration, not the ESD. Just looking at the contract
side of it and seeing if there -- if it's even possible for
the City to have a different rate structure in different
areas. If we can't -- I mean, those things can -- I just
cannot imagine they can't be done in three months, but I'd
be willing to go to six months. I think that we're just
having -- asking for the continuation of the same problem,
being around the same table in 12 months, if we don't get
this resolved before next budget year, and well before next
budget year.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Commissioner, if
both government entities could agree to the user-pay
principle, me and Mr. Holloway could have a contract ready
for you to sign in 72 hours.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Can I make a comment? I
know --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it calls for one from
you, Chief.
MR. MEEK: Either that or leave.
MR. HOLLOWAY: To begin with, on the
different zones, it -- you know, say we go to west Kerr
County, because they're the farthest out. We're going to
charge them $1,000. The problem is, Medicare is only going
to pay about $300. Doesn't matter what you charge; they're
only going to pay about $300. And 70 percent of the -- our
e i5-os joo
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"` 2 9
25
patients are Medicare, Medicaid, or V.A. patients, and they
will only pay a certain amount of money, so that leaves
30 percent of our population -- of our calls that are not
Medicare-driven. So, you know, we looked at raising rates
much as we thought it would, because most of our patients
are not.
As far as doing a budget for three months,
six months, that would be a nightmare for me, 'cause I have
employees that I have to wonder, in three months or six
months from now, am I going to have to let some employees go
because I don't know what's in the contract? I really
need -- y'all have to decide this, but I really need to know
what it's going to cost, how much money I'm going to have to
operate for a whole year. It would be like me telling one
of y'all, you know, you've got 20 guys out there that are
working, and in six months we may decide that we're not
going to give you enough money to -- you're going to have to
let some of them go. So, I've got people I have to worry
about. I have my contract and different things that we have
in the budget. You know, and I would really hope that y'all
would decide to -- to fund this for at least a year, you
know.	If	y'all	want to	get a	committee	together to	look at
this,	you	know,	whether	it's	six months	-- you know,	six
8-19 OS jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
42
months is a short period of time. I mean, it seems like a
long time, but it really is a short period of time. You
know, you're going to have -- I'm sure that you're probaoly
going to have to be sitting here again this time next year,
or maybe a little sooner, and looking at what we're going to
do next year in the contract.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Raymond, every
medical service provider is faced with the same issue, with
Medicare --
MR, HOLLOWAY: Sure, that's right.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: -- and deadbeats.
And whether it"s a local physician over here in private
practice or Sid Pete, they all handle it the same way. They
set their fees at a level that takes into account the
deadbeats and Medicare. And the other thing they do is,
when I pay my mother's bills, who's on Medicare, they
don't -- Medicare doesn't pay it; they always send me a bill
and I pay it.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, they pay 20 -- and we do
go after that, that 20 percent that Medicare doesn't pay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I see no -- this is
a medical -- we're a medical service provider, just like
other medical service providers, and we ought to use the
same strategy they do to either make their profit or cover
their costs.
8-19 OS lcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
43
MR. MEEK: Dave?
MR. HOLLOWAY: And we have been a user-pay
system since 1994.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We are a user-pay 50
or 60 percent system.
MR. MEEK: I have --
MR. HOLLOWAY: I won't debate that.
MR. MEEK: Don't sit down yet.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We got 2 million --
excuse me. We get -- our operating capital costs are about
$2 million, and our billings are about $2 million.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Our collection rate is about
54 percent if you take the Medicare out.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR, MEEK: I have a question. I had heard a
figure of 60 percent to break even. I've also heard
80 percent. Do you have any update on what it would take?
MR, HOLLOWAY: Well, if we raised the rates
about 80 percent, based on the Medicare disallowed and the
bad debt and all that going up, we probably could get by
without any subsidy.
MR. MEEK; Okay. What -- the point I wanted
to make there is -- and it is a question for both entities
to look at and hopefully get some insight from our potential
committee over here. That's part of the important minutiae
8 19-OS jcc
1
"` 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~.~ 13
19
15
16
17
16'
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
44
that the two bodies would have to work out at some period of
time, and that is, is user-pay what we can agree to? Or is
there a benefit to people county-wide, whether they live in
the city or not, to having that service in place, if they
use that service that calendar year or not? I believe there
is a benefit. But these are some very important details
that these two bodies will be faced with deciding. I,
speaking as one councilman, am very interested in hearing
ideas -- good, bad, or otherwise -- that have a potential
for improving our bottom line. There's no question we have
a wonderful service now. Whether it is ideas on
collections, ideas on rate adjustment, you don't have to
wait till August or June or -- you can -- we can be getting
together any time during the year. I understand Jonathan's
point; you know, what's the incentive if you have a whole
year to get together? Sut you have my commitment as one
individual that I -- I want to solve this long-term, and
I'll -- I'll look at any viable solutions. I don't care
what month it is. And I think if the two groups can take
that kind of attitude to heart and live up to it, then it's
a matter of making the best solutions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's --
once we work our way through the minutiae, using your word,
Councilman, that's why the emergency service district really
becomes important, because -- because if we never -- if the
8-19-US icc
1
`. 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'°- 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
4' 2 4
25
45
system never gets to total user-pay, as my colleague would
like to see -- I don't know if that's a possibility or
not -- spreading the cost across the entire tax base makes
sense. If 7 never have to use that box personally or for a
member of my family, it's worth something in my tax rate to
know that it's available when I need it -- when and if I
need it. And I think that's an argument that can be made to
the public, and they will understand it. And 1 think that's
why it's important for both of us to join together with that
view in mind as a long -- part of the long-term solution.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think maybe Chief
Holloway misunderstood. What I was saying is for the
six-month period. I don't mind committing for service; I
understand you have personnel that's using that for a year.
I want a commitment from the Council that at the end of
three months or six months, they will in good faith -- I
don't mean them personally, but they will in good faith see
that these issues that we have -- the County has -- are
looked at, and consider changes if -- if it's agreeable. I
mean, I haven't been able to get enough information to know
if what I'm asking to look at is even plausible. It may not
be, and it may be in six months I'll say, "The City's doing
everything they can; let's leave it the way it is." And it
may be in six months I say we need to establish -- "I think
we need a zone thing." And that's all I'm saying, is that I
e i5-os ;~~
46
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
don't mind committing to a contract for 12 months; I just
want a six-month period that we can get a commitment out of
issues, from user-pay to collections to everything, and see
if there is a way to improve.
MR. WAMPLER: We don't have any objections at
all to analyzing, looking at the operation, looking at our
administrative services, our billing, our collections, and
we do that on an ongoing basis. We have every interest, as
-- as do you, to run as efficient an operation, as
well-staffed and service operation as we possibly can for
the benefit of all the citizens, and we believe that we've
done that. As -- as has been talked about around this
table, there's no quibble whatsoever with regard to the
quality of service, level of service, call times,
what-have-you, so I think it's premature from my standpoint
to say what the Council might do going forward with regard
to emergency services district or any other solution to the
mutual issues that we're talking about today. What I came
here to do today was to talk about the proposal that's on
the table now, to see what is going to happen with regard to
the short-term issue. Personally, I -- you know, I welcome
the opportunity to sit down and talk about some of the
long-range issues that we're discussing today and those that
we face. But from the standpoint of today, obviously, we're
8 19-OS 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
short-handed; we can't commit the Council. I'd like to --
to focus on the contract at hand and get past that, and then
come back to -- at some future date and talk about, you
know, future communications.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure if -- from
what all you said, if you're agreeable to my suggestion or
not.
MR. WAMPLER: Well, I'll let you come to your
own conclusion about it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think he said,
"Trust me."
MR. WAMPLER: I said that I'd be willing and
welcome the opportunity to sit down and discuss those issues
in the future, but that we -- that I came here today to talk
about the proposal that's on the table.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, in that
regard -- in that context, is there any movement on the part
of the City with respect to some of the items included in
the amount of subsidy you're requesting from the County, or
is your position fixed?
MR. WAMPLER: My position is fixed. I'm
speaking as one Councilmember.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why, in my
opinion, I don't mind -- I mean, that's why I'd rather go
with three months, 'cause I disagree with the $200,000
ft 19-OS 1cc
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
number, but I'll go along with that if they'll just commit
to at least, you know, in good faith look at it. And that's
not accepting the proposal, but it's accepting it for a
third of the -- or a quarter of the year, or even up to half
a year I'd probably go. I just want to -- you know, I just
want a good faith effort to try to solve the problem. You
know, if y'all want to subsidize the way y'all are doing it
in the city limits, that's just -- and don't want to get
into an ESD, that's a City Council decision, 100 percent.
But I don't understand why the City doesn't want the County
to try to get the county portion into a user-pay and not
change the service. I just don't see how that is anything
negative to the city side. You know, maybe if the billing
stays in the city, it's a little bit more work, 'cause
things have to be coded, okay, instead of -- there's going
to be two rate structures, something like that. But I just
don't understand how -- why the City won't even agree to
discuss that. And that's --
MR. MEEK: Let me make a comment here,
Jonathan. I have no idea whether an ESD is a -- is viable
or not. I like the idea of trying to find whatever format
is the most fair to everybody. That may have the potential
of doing that. Don't know all the details. But as long as
we have -- the people in the city limits actually are paying
about three-fourths of the total bill, then it's us against

49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
G2
23
24
25
-- it's two entities that are trying to balance a fund that
can never be balanced on a purely fair basis. If we did
have an ESD in place, then we wouldn't be quibbling over the
-- the details quite as much, because whatever it is, it
would be fair to everyone.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick comment on that,
and I can't let it go, is on the -- you said 75-25. I know
you're rounding off numbers, --
MR. MEEK: Very much rounding off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- but I think the City
Council has to understand that all of the shopping and
stores in Kerr County are in the city of Kerrville, and
there's sales tax. The City gets three-to-one sales tax
dollars compared to the County. So, while, yes, the --
MR. MEEK: That's true.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the city residents
subsidize the county on services that are inside the city
provided by the county, the county residents subsidize the
city budget through sales tax. And I -- I don't know if
it's a wash exactly. I guess one of these days I'm going to
have to sit down -- go to the Comptroller's office and
figure out exactly what the breakdown is. It may not be
50-50; I don't know. But -- I don't know how you break it
down, but I know it's not 75-25, because the sales tax is a
good portion of your revenue. And I just think that's got
5-19-OS ~cc
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
to be on the table, so I can't just let it go on -- that
property tax is the only thing that funds either of our
budgets.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I wondered when you
were going to get there, Commissioner.
MR. MEEK: You're a little behind schedule on
that one, Jonathan, actually. Well, I hear what you're
saying, but I'm also hearing that everybody sitting around
this table and probably in this room is interested in a
solution here. And, you know, I like what I've heard --
I've heard here today, but we really don't have the luxury
of time to solve the problems now. We do, hopefully, need
to move forward. It's -- I don't -- I just don't think
there is enough time to make adjustments to this contract,
and that -- that's why the City has placed an acceptance
deadline on the contract as offered to the County. And we
sincerely hope the County accepts this offer. My door will
not be closed, and I doubt that the other people in the
City's door will be closed. Bring us good ideas. Any
dollar that's saved for the County is also a dollar saved
for the City. And, as I said, I commit to work on this, but
I sincerely hope y'all can move ahead, accept the offer that
is on the table, and then go after the solutions.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is there any magic in
that deadline that was -- that was put out of the 23rd, I
8-19 OS 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
51
believe?
(Mr. Bavis nodded.)
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There is magic in
that deadline?
MS. DAM S: No, I'm saying the 23rd was the
deadline.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. The reason I
asked is because we have a full day of workshops coming up
the next day on budget matters, and I'm wondering whether or
not --
MR. MEEK: Bill, would this help you to know
where it was going when you're working on your budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It will affect --
definitely affect the budget.
MR. MEEK: Wouldn't you want to know before
you went into those budget meetings?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's part of the
decLsion making, and has to be, as we put all these pieces
of the puzzle together. If we give the City $200,000, we
may have to tell the Sheriff he can't have some of these
things.
MR. MEEK: I understand.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN; We have --
MS. DAMS: I think the deadline, to answer
8-1y-OS 1~c
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
24
25
52
your question, Mr. Williams, was established because the
Council was meeting Tuesday night.
MR. MEEK: That's right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We have an agenda
item, I think, that's styled that we could take action if we
so chose to.
JUDGE TINLEY: We do,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And we also have one
for Monday -- this coming Monday of our regular
Commissioners Court meeting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. And I have -- in my
opinion -- the County Attorney may have a different opinion,
and certainly I would have to defer to his, but I think
the -- I think the -- that it's styled in such a manner that
if we wanted to, for example, appoint this committee, at
least from our standpoint, we have a quorum. The City, of
course, does not and cannot take official action, but we
could do that either today or Monday, as far as that goes.
COMMISSIONER, BALDWIN: The committee itself?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Appointing the
committee?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- I mean, I
think it's -- if the committee's not appointed jointly, it
E-15-OS 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
doesn't do a whole lot of good, 'cause the City has the
information.
MR. WAMPLER: I would say also, just -- just
from a practical standpoint, it would be unlikely that the
Council would be able to act on a committee for some period
of time, you know, with regard -- we have to appoint an
interim mayor; we have to appoint another councilmember.
Probably want to include them in this decision. So I
wouldn't be able to say today when we might be able to act
on appointing a committee, if at all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: See, that just clearly
points out how good the city government is. We can do that
today.
MR. WAMPLER: We could have done it today if
we had a full staff.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I tell you what;
I'm in favor of appointing the committee. I'd rather see
five than four, in case there was some kind of tie thinking.
I know you guys don't tie, but I'd rather see five. But I'd
really like to see the committee put in place; I really and
truly would. I think it would be important. Whether the
City goes along with it or not, they could -- we could use
them as a sounding board and advise Commissioners Court, if
nothing else.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
8-19-05 jcc
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
~0
21
22
23
24
ZS
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that sign language?
JUDGE TINLEX: Yeah, it is. It was intended
to be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. HAYES: I missed something.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have access to
Mr. Bock?
MR. HAYES: No. He told me last night he
probably wouldn`t be here, and he would call if he was going
to be here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We can do it today. I
mean, I can certainly have a motion -- we can do a motion
today. If Commissioner Baldwin wants to make one, I
certainly will second something, but I think we can wait
till Monday, too. You know, I think that I -- I like the
idea, and I think there is some -- I think how the committee
is -- I guess the charge of the committee would vary,
whether the City wants to participate or not. I think that,
from my standpoint in the county only, I would Like to have
a committee give us some advice on ESD's and where the
County should go long-term, and I would like to have city
and county input on that, so I'm in favor of that. If we
expand the committee to also look at the current agreement
and relationship and look at some of -- billing, some of
8-19 OS 1cc
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, I think it's fruitless to do -- to give that charge
unless the City's going to join in it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree with that.
MR. WAMPLER: Just to be clear, Judge, even
if Todd were here, I'm not sure that I could support doing a
committee today because of some of the issues that Jonathan
mentioned with regard to the charge of the committee, the
form, what responsibilities and what-have-you. That's
something I'm going to have to consider and think about,
personally. I'm not prepared to make a decision on that
today, even if we had a quorum.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Lunchtime yet?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Close enough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Scrimmage time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Does any member of the Court
have a motion to offer in connection with the agenda item
today? Hearing none, any further discussion on the agenda
subject that's before the Court?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just want to thank
the members of Council for coming here to this meeting
today. I think it's important that we sit face-to-face and
talk about these issues. And perhaps part of the problem is
we haven't done that often enough in the past. And I
s-i9-os ~~~
56
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
appreciate Council and staff coming to our little bailiwick
here and joining us in this discussion.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anyone on behalf of the City
have any other comments they wish to offer?
MR. WAMPLER: Thank you for your hospitality.
Good to be here. Good to see you guys, and second what Bill
said.
MR. MEEK: I just encourage you to make good
decisions.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There aren't any
good options available.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here. We
appreciate it. We'll stand adjourned.
(Joint meeting adjourned at 11:15 a.m.)
B-19-OS err
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L2
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 23rd day of August,
2005.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : _ e~c~_ - _ __
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
a-i~ os i~~