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
KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
and
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
City/County Joint Meeting
Wednesday, August 9, 2006
9:00 a.m.
Kerrville Public Utility Board Meeting room
2250 Memorial Boulevard
Kerrville, Texas
P R E S E N T
Kerrville City Council:
EUGENE C. SMITH, Mayor
TODD A. BOCK, Mayor Pro Tem
CARL MEEK, Councilperson, Place 2
T. SCOTT GROSS, Councilperson, Place 3
CHUCK COLEMAN, Councilperson, Place 4
PAUL HOFMANN, City Manager
Kerr County Commissioners Court:
PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
DAVE NICHOLSON, Commissioner Pct. 4

d
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
-,
L
I N D E X
August 9, 2006
PAGE
Call to Order 3
Discussion of Economic Development Steering Committee 3
Discussion of Joint County/City Projects 7
Dispatch g
EMS 17
Fire 46
Library 65
Airport 104
Animal Control 105
Schedule a date for joint meeting of Kerr County
Commissioners' Court and Kerrville City Council 134
Adjourned 135
3
1	On Wednesday, August 9, 2006, at	9:00 a.m., a joint
2	meeting of the Kerrville City Council	and the Kerr County
3	Commissioners Court was held in the Ke	rrville Public Utility
4	Board Meeting Room, 2250 Memorial Bou	evard, Kerrville, Texas,
5	and the following proceedings were ha	
6	P R O C E E D I N	G S
7	JUDGE TINLEY: I will call	o order the joint
8	meeting of the City of Kerrville and	err County Commissioners
9	Court meeting posted and scheduled fo	this date, Wednesday,
10	August 9, 2006, at 9 a.m. It is shor	ly after that time now.
11	You want to go ahead and call to orde	?
12	MAYOR SMITH: I'd like to c	11 to order the
13	Kerrville City Council at a special m	eting between the City
14	Council and the Commissioners Court o	Wednesday, August 9th,
15	2006.	
16	JUDGE TINLEY: Might I Bugg	st that we all rise and
17	give the pledge of allegiance?	
18	(Pledge of allegiance.)	
19	JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you.	f I might, I think we
20	might be able to dispose of the secon	item on the agenda
21	rather quickly. The economic develop	ent steering committee,
22	as most of -- most of you recall, bot	the City of Kerrville
23	and the -- and Kerr County passed a r	solution relative to an
24	economic development strategy which e	visioned appointing of a
25	committee of no more than nine member	and I think it was
8-9-06 jcc
1
-^ 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
2 2
23
24
9
envisioned that nine be appointed. And after Kerr County had
adopted that resolution, I had a discussion with the City
Manager, and subsequently the mayor, and what I proposed was
that the nucleus of that committee be comprised of two members
of the Commissioners Court who had probably more interest in
were two members of the City Council that had an acute
interest in -- in economic development, and that those four
comprise the committee. For those of you that might still be
wondering, I don't think it's any secret, on the city,
Mr. Coleman and Mr. Bock, and on the county side, myself and
-- and Commissioner Williams. And that that nucleus then
reach consensus on the remaining five members of the committee
under that resolution, and let's get on down the road. And
I've -- what I'd like to do is either seek confirmation of
that plan, or -- or some other appropriate plan so that we can
implement that strategy and get it moving.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, I'd like to make a motion that
soon as possible.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you making a motion on
25 ~ JUDGE TINLEY: City.
A-9-06 ~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
5
MAYOR SMITH: For the city side, okay. I've made
the motion for the city side. I guess it needs to be seconded
by the city side.
MR. HAYES: Mayor, if you will, I don't think this
is posted for action today. You can take action at the next
council meeting or another joint meeting.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay, fine. Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if the City's unable to take
action, I guess the next -- the backup situation would be,
does anyone have any other idea they want to float? And we
can kick that around while we're all here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, neither -- what I'm
hearing is that no action be can be taken on any item today.
Correct?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what the County
Attorney just said.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, you can discuss it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, absolutely.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay. Does any Council member wish to
discuss the proposal by the County Judge? Anyone object to
it? I don't know if that's proper, but does anyone care to
discuss the matter? Does Mr. Bock and Mr. Coleman want to
accept that assignment?
MR. COLEMAN: Go ahead. I'm very pleased to have an
opportunity to serve on that commission, and would look
e-~-o~ hoc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
6
forward to doing so. And I agree with the Judge's summary; I
think that's appropriate and the way to go.
MR. BOCK: Mr. Mayor, I, myself, as long as there's
no objections from the Council, would not mind doing that.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay. Well, it'll be an agenda item
at our next meeting, so we can handle it in an appropriate
manner. That will keep our lawyer happy.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, the only comment I'd have
is that I presume this will be on our upcoming agenda or the
meeting after that, and if you would phrase -- I presume
you'll put that on the agenda -- phrase it such we can have a
little bit of direction on that, because I have some -- I have
no problem with the makeup that you've put out, but I do have
some -- the other five members, I do have some input as to who
I'd like to see on the committee. But I can -- we can deal
with that at Commissioners Court if y'all can carry that
forward.
DODGE TINLEY: Certainly, any strategy that's
brought forward by whomever may comprise that committee would
have to be approved by both governmental bodies, so that's --
that's the safeguard that's built into it.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, I would have the same concern
that Jonathan expressed; that even though they -- they are, I
think the City Council would want to reserve the right to
review the people that are put on there. So --
8-9-n6 jcc
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
7
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, this gives us both the
opportunity, then, to -- to seek some advice from our
colleagues and determine other names that would be placed in
the nomination.
MAYOR SMITH: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it gives us the
opportunity to do that.
MAYOR SMITH: So, if any Councilperson desires or
has some ideas, he should discuss it with Mr. Bock and
Mr. Coleman.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This should be able to be on
both agendas for finalizing by the end of this month or second
meeting of August, I would think. I mean, this shouldn't
take --
MAYOR SMITH: Our next meeting is on the 22nd.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I mean, it shouldn't -- I
would hope -- I think we can be pretty close to that by that
point. Or they -- if not, then the first meeting of
September. Just so we don't drag this out too long.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I think we should -- we should be
able to get it in this month, easily.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That would be my hope. Why
don't we come back, then, to actually the first item,
discussion of joint City and County projects. What's the
a-9-oa ~,_,.
1
.~' 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"' 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
.W 24
25
8
ones? Somebody throw one out and let's get on with it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, the agenda talks
about existing budget? Or potential for the future?
JUDGE TINLEY: I see that as being open-ended,
something on the table here that has been going through my
head for some time. I had a discussion with the Sheriff the
other day about it, and if you'll indulge me for a second,
step back in history for about 10 or 11 years ago. In this
very room, there was a discussion that took place between the
-- the principal law enforcement officers in Kerr County and
the City with respect to joint dispatch or common dispatch.
Took place right here about 11 years ago. I know about that,
because at that time I was the publisher of the Mountain Sun,
and I was asked to moderate that meeting, and I did so. Took
about an hour into the discussion, and we learned real quickly
that there was a potential turf war brewing, and there really
was not a great sense of confidence in 9-1-1, and that the
idea of -- the initiative of a joint dispatch was not going to
go anywhere. And so I don't recall that since that time,
there has been any discussion at all regarding that.
Last week I had an opportunity to visit with Kerr
County Sheriff Rusty Hierholzer and brought the topic back up
3-9-06 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
to him again, and he indicated that, conceptually, it was a
good idea, really made sense. The reason I brought it up to
the Sheriff was because he's requested three more dispatchers
on top of the number of dispatchers we already have in our
complement. So, if you lay that onto the table with the, I
believe, 8 or 10 that the City also funds, you begin to wonder
whether or not there is a possibility for economies of scale
and improvement in the efficiency. So, we talked about it a
little bit, and the Sheriff indicated that he would probably
be willing to consider that again, but we needed to have a way
in which politics were removed and efficiency and so forth
were the uppermost in mind. And the best way to remove the
politics in the Sheriff's mind, and I concur with him, is that
9-1-1 be the agency that is commissioned by the City and the
County to do dispatching, and under interlocal agreement, we
fund that. We fund it and equip it with whatever funds are
necessary to get the job done.
So, I would like to -- for us to consider the
officer or staff to examine the possibilities of it, see what
the savings are, see where the efficiencies can be improved,
and see what can happen that makes it better. If we had done
that 11 years ago, I venture to suggest the taxpayers of Kerr
County and the city could have saved two, three million
8 9 06 jcc
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
10
dollars over this period of time, and so I think this is an
initiative worth taking under advisement.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree. And another way to
take the politics out of the thing is the physical buildings
that they're now housed in, we got to take them out of there
and put them in a neutral site somewhere.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. That was one of
the reasons why it didn't go anywhere last time. It came to a
turf war as to where it was going to be located. But it
doesn't need to be that way.
MAYOR SMITH: There's a difference between the way
that the county government operates. The commissioners really
are the workers there, and in the city government, the City
Council sets policy, but the City Manager is -- the staff
works for the City Manager. So, if you want to talk about law
enforcement, the law enforcement officers are under the City
Manager. So, I imagine that the City Manager will do a lot of
the discussion of these issues in behalf of the City Council.
Of course, the City Council members have the right to put in
their two cents any -- any time they want. But the way the
city government is -- is set up, the City Manager would be the
principal party, different than the County, who -- which the
individual people are -- are elected separately. So, we'll --
we might have a -- have to balance the differences between the
B 5 06 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
forms of government we have at the proper time. But --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Understood.
MAYOR SMITH: -- I'm sure anybody that cares to
comment will comment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, the -- it appears that
the -- I haven't heard from anyone on the City, but if the
City wants to do it, the way do it is through a resolution
that both of us pass, similar to what we did with the economic
development. If both parties want to do a resolution, you can
set the guidelines as to how it's going to be done and
proceed. That's the way.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's a good way to
kick it off, just like we did on the economic development.
Everybody agree that we're going to kick it off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's right.
MR. MEEK: Well, I'm very much interested in
exploring this avenue to determine what the savings --
potential savings would be, the staffing requirements and all.
And I would -- I would see this falling under the ddmain of
policy, and the councilmen are the policy makers, and working
closely with our staff. I would like to -- I would like to
see some type of cooperation between the Sheriff's office and
the police -- the police to see where this might go. So, I
like the idea to explore.
MR. GROSS: Did you intend to include fire and EMS?
B 9 Oti jcc
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
1L
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm sorry?
MR. GROSS: Did you intend to include fire and EMS?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Include?
MR. GROSS: Fire.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Oh, absolutely, all
emergency services. Common dispatch for police, Sheriff,
emergency services. Whatever is dispatched comes together
under one -- one roof, one center, everything.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're -- I shouldn't say
unique, but I know there are many counties and cities that do
this. I mean, whether they go through a third-party or they
-- we're one of the ones -- I mean, I think we're a little bit
probably on the unique side having separate dispatchers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You know, in furtherance of
the discussion, years ago, when the topic first came up, 9-1-1
was -- if you'll excuse me, Mr. Amerine -- was floundering.
That was before you got here. And since you've gotten here,
it no longer flounders; it functions beautifully, and -- to my
understanding. And that was one of the -- one of the
impediments in those days, that it just couldn't come together
and just wouldn't work, plus the natural turf wars. I think
9-1-1 does a beautiful job, and if we at the City and the
County got together by resolution and worked out the details
and the funding mechanism, let 9-1-1 handle it, this would be
a win-win situation for everybody.
8-9-Oh jcc
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLEMAN: Well, I agree with previously --
MAYOR SMITH: Mr. Amerine is here, and we're giving
MAYOR SMITH: Any comment in that regard?
MR. AMERINE: Well, I think the idea has merit and
that it should be studied. My understanding, speaking to both
the Sheriff and the Chief of Police, there are some
fundamental issues with warrants and other things that would
have to be worked through, but just -- consolidation has some
hooks in it that we're going to have to figure out, but there
would be an economy in scale and in a consolidated dispatch.
I'm a little bit concerned about the turf issue on employees,
whether they be 9-1-1 or the City or the County dispatching
other jurisdictions' resources. But, again, those are other
issues that can be worked through in this process.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm thinking about
Commissioner Williams' comments that we had an opportunity to
do this a number of years ago, and passed on it for -- for
whatever reasons, and that it probably cost a couple million
dollars in taxpayer dollars because we failed to take
advantage of that potential synergy. I'm also thinking that
taxes are a burden on Kerrville and Kerr County property
owners, and that a good way to attack that is to find ways to
do everything we do less costly and look for other synergies
9-9 Ob jcc
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so that we don't unnecessarily duplicate costs. So, this is
-- this is, in my view, but one example of a way to approach
easing the tax burden by reducing the cost of government.
Cost of government in Kerr County and Kerrville is high. It's
too high. On a per capita basis, we --
AUDIENCE: Would you gentlemen speak up a little bit
so that we can hear what's going on? It's rather difficult
for us. Thank you.
MR. COLEMAN: I agree with previous comments. I'd
like to see the ability to work together on the thing more,
especially if we could save money. I'd like to see a
projection, I think, before we spent a lot of time and effort,
to make sure that it would -- would be an endeavor that would
save enough money to justify the operation. And maybe --
maybe address -- maybe Bill could address some of the key
elements that might need to be ironed out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That can be accomplished
probably by -- have the first phase in a resolution to have
him look at it, and then if it's worth pursuing, go a whole
step further, how you go about doing it. I mean, kind of find
the --
MR. COLEMAN: Good idea.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, you don't get bogged
down in the minutiae, and then it's a dumb idea to start with.
MR. COLEMAN: Right.
8-5 06 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
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where if you're coming up with a
-- you know, look at the big points. If it works, there
certainly is a way to deal with details of employees and who
to report to and benefits and that type of stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: As in the economic development
strategy resolution, I think we're probably to the point of
trying to craft a resolution that would direct both bodies to
designate participants and utilize whatever resources are
available to study the subject and to find parameters to
proceed or not. And once we get to that point, why, then we
can go forward, I think.
MR. BOCK: Commissioner Williams, should we expect a
resolution coming from the County, or would you prefer that to
be drafted by the City, or drafted with the city -- with our
City Manager?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We could initiate it and
send it over to you for -- for your point of view and input
and change. I could take a crack at it.
MR. BOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll work with the Judge and
we'll send it over to the mayor and Paul and see where it
takes us.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm --
MR. BOCK: I like the idea.
DODGE TINLEY: I'm looking at Mr. Amerine. I think
B 9 U6 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
29
25
maybe his input --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's valuable.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- might be helpful. Can we call on
you, Mr. Amerine?
MR. AMERINE: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: For at least guidance or critique?
MR. AMERINE: Absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, sir.
MAYOR SMITH: I see there's a lot of details that
need to be worked out on this, so it's not something that's
going to happen right away.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mayor, it's going to take a
little while to work it out, and if we -- if the parties do
agree, it'll be a lot of questions on staffing and some of the
things that Mr. Amerine mentioned. So, I'd say that we're
probably looking at at least a year before this would go in
effect.
COMMISSIONER
MAYOR SMITH:
JUDGE TINLEY
MAYOR SMITH:
MR. HOFMANN:
MAYOR SMITH:
MR. HOFMANN:
MAYOR SMITH:
WILLIAMS: Probably.
Probably.
Any more on that particular issue?
Do you have any comments on it?
No, sir.
Okay.
Happy to work on it.
Thank you.
8-9-06 jcc
17
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: Any further comment on that issue?
Next subject?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS.
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS.
JUDGE TINLEY: EMS? Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I don't have a great
problem with the proposal from the City on the EMS contract.
I mean, basically, it's what we worked out last year. It
seems to be, you know, pretty much fair. The area that I
would like to see a change, and it's not -- I don't really see
this involves the City a whole lot, but their concurrence
would be required, is that the County have the ability either
to take over billing, or work on the billing side. I have
talked to quite a few -- some other entities, EMS's and
counties and private companies that are collection-type
agencies -- or companies, and they feel there are areas that
can be billed that the City currently isn't billing, such as
dry runs, runs out to the -- well, I know one of the issues
has been before is runs out to the interstate, where
frequently those are non-Kerr County residents. You can
charge non-county residents a different rate than county
residents and things of that nature. And I don't think it's
going to ever get to the point that it'll pay for itself
totally, but I think that the -- there is a way to make some
a-9-o6 5co
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
additional revenue.
I brought this up, I think, last year, maybe others
as well. There seemed to, at that point, be a little bit of
a -- a lack of interest from the City changing their billing
structure. That's fine, but I think the County -- I would
like to bring it back to the County if we could work out a way
to do it with the City to get into the agreement that the
County can have a -- set a different billing structure for
county residents, and see where that takes us. And it's
really more a -- you know, at this point, it's very -- I mean, '
we're again up -- our backs are up against the wall time-wise
to make changes in any of these agreements, so I don't know
that it can be done by the 1st of October, but I think we need
', to -- you know, certainly, concurrence from the City that
they're willing to explore this and figure out how the County
can have a different billing structure.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're saying billing
structure for county residents. You mean billing structure
for runs outside the city limits?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm sorry.
MAYOR SMITH: Don't forget that the people that live
in Kerrville are county residents.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're not going to forget
8-5 05 icc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
that, believe me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's exactly right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thanks for reminding us.
MAYOR SMITH: Remind you of that fact.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We get reminded daily.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: Jon, can you restate that very simply?
I missed that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There are -- there are --
MR. COLEMAN: For the outside -- for the county
residents, you'd like --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The county residents would have
a different billing structure -- or residents who live outside
of the city limits would have a different billing structure,
potentially, than those that live inside the city limits. And
I think that is -- is doable. It's justifiable, and I think
it would bring in additional revenue to the County.
MR. COLEMAN: And the whole point would be that for
those outside the city limits, there would be more aggressive
billing?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think there is -- as I
understand it right now, there are -- there are not bills for
dry runs. Saying there's one reason I know that went up;
there's -- I think the Chief and I had a number of e-mails
that went back and forth about a run out into Falling Water,
8-9-06 jcc
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
`"' 1 3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and there was no transport at the end of all that, and it
was -- a lot of time was eaten up by that crew. I think that
resident should have been billed. I mean, I -- you know, and
not just -- that one person happened to be a friend of mine,
but, I mean, I think that there -- if you're -- if they -- if
someone calls 9-1-1, we should try to bill for that -- that
service. I understand that there are -- you get issues that
they won't do it. If -- you know, if you're -- if, you know,
Carl lives next door to me and Carl calls 'cause he thinks I
need an EMS -- and I understand that there are some problems,
but there are also times when I think you can collect. On the
interstate issue, from what I -- my understanding is, that a
lot -- same thing happens on those. Sometimes they're
refused. I mean, I think you almost have to send out a unit
on a wreck on the interstate because of the potential
problems, but if there's no transport, it's a dry run right
now. And my understanding is that most auto insurance will
pick up for that; they will pay that out of their -- the
person's who's responsible for that accident.
MR. COLEMAN: Jonathan, I almost think that if it's
appropriate to bill outside residents in that manner, it would
be -- it would be appropriate to bill city residents in that
manner, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MR. COLEMAN: And we just need to work out --
B-9-06 jcr
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
21
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I agree with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I agree.
MR. COLEMAN: We need to work out what is
~I appropriate to bill, and all come together and do that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: For anybody who may not be
informed about the scope of the issue, the difference between
II costs and revenues on EMS are 433,000 a year. But there are
I other counties where they're -- where the revenues cover the
costs of the EMS. And the solution that -- that Commissioner
Letz is discussing is -- is a compromise solution that would
work, and I would support it. But I -- I wonder, why not just
solve the whole problem by adjusting the rate schedule to
where revenues meet costs?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and the only reason I
brought this up to the county only is there was a reluctance
last year from the City to do it when we had these same
discussions. And it was -- and it goes everything from
looking at -- 7 mean, as I understand it -- again, I hope the
Chief will correct me if I'm wrong on these, or our budget
guru from the City -- that a lot of the -- the runs and
transports are billed at the Medicare rate. Well, there's a
lot of counties that don't bill for EMS services -- that do
not bill at the Medicare rate; they bill at a higher rate from
you. If you accept that amount -- I didn't go and check it,
but there are times for some transports -- you know, I'm told
8 9-06 jcc
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
L 2
23
29
25
that you can collect additional funds through private
insurance or through the individual. So -- and I would really
like to -- I think we just need to be a lot more aggressive.
Obviously, I can't speak for the, you know, City Council,
so -- this didn't go anywhere last year, so my proposal this
year is, well, okay, if the City doesn't want to do it for
residents of the -- within the city limits, you know, I
understand that, but those that live outside, I think the
County should have the prerogative to set a billing structure.
And I -- I don't see that it's real hard. Maybe there's a
hurdle in the billing system that I don't understand, but it
doesn't seem it should be that difficult.
MR. COLEMAN: Was this potentially an issue that
General Schellhase addressed in his review of the EMS?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: To a degree. And on the -` I
believe the Medicare issue -- he's here. I believe that they
pretty much felt that the -- the City's way of doing it makes
sense. Isn't that pretty much correct?
MR. SCHELLHASE: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the Medicare side. But I
don't know that they addressed the dry runs and -- and billing
runs to the interstate for out-of-county residents at
different rates. I don't know that they looked into that
detail. I don't know. I'm just not sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One of the issues is dry
8 9-06 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
runs. An ambulance is dispatched to a home or to pick up
somebody, and all of a sudden, the guy feels better and he
doesn't want to get in the ambulance. Well, the costs are
there, but the revenue didn't come. Why not? For example.
MR. COLEMAN: And I agree on the standard industry
basis. I think we should bill for all that we can, and should
be willing to help defray that cost. But I think it should be
on a standard industry basis, whatever that is, and I'm not
sure. I don't know.
MR. MEEK: Is that correct? We bill all of our runs
at the Medicare rate; is that correct?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Can I respond?
MR. HOFMANN: Sure.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That is incorrect. We bill the same
-- we bill -- our base rate is three -- 380, plus whatever the
other charges are. Medicare only pays about 280. We don't
base it on what Medicare is paying. We -- you know, we charge
everybody, you know, whatever it is. As far as the dry runs,
we charge a response fee, and it's anywhere from $55 to $100.
So, we do charge those people. I mean, it's not -- it barely
covers our costs, but we do charge those people. Now, the
interstate, if we make a call out on the interstate and it's
someone that's not local, we don't charge that -- that fee.
We do charge -- if we pick them up and transport them, we do
charge them for that. Part of the problem with that is, you
8-9-Oe jcc
24
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
know, a lot of them live out of state, and we'd have a
i difficult time collecting from them. But, yeah, we do charge,
and it's not at the Medicaid -- Medicare rate. Now, the
problem with increasing the rates for the county residents, if
they're on Medicare, we're only going to collect what Medicare
allows. It doesn't matter if we charge them $5,000;
Medicare's only going to pay a certain amount of money. And
we're only able to collect -- what Medicare does is they --
they only -- if they approve the 285, then they will pay
80 percent of that, and we can go after the patients for that
20 percent, but not anything over that. And our hands are
pretty much tied as far as we accept Medicare. And not only
-- I don't want to put you on the spot, Mr. Nicholson, but I'd
like to know what counties are -- their EMS operation is
breaking even with the revenues, because Medicare is killing
everybody I know.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Really, I'd like to have a list of
that and find out how they're doing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bandera County -- Kerr County's
Auditor is also for them. He says just recently, they went
negative; they've been making in the black until very
recently.
MR.	HOLLOWAY:	I'd like to see how they	do that,
because that	would be --		
8-9-OE jcc
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Chief, you said a base run
is $380; is that correct?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that fee is established
by reason of your assessment of costs and whatever, whatever?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And that's a fee that's an
arbitrary fee that's been set based on the cost per run in the
city; is that correct?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's the base.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then Medicare then takes
a look at this number and says, "We'll pay 'X' of that
amount"?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No, Medicare has a set rate that
they'll -- for Kerr County that they'll pay right now, and
it's -- I believe it's 280.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, is it a rate based on
county or region or state or what?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Zip code.
MR. HOLLOWAY: On the zip code.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MR. HOLLOWAY: On the zip code.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yep.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
R- 9- O F j C C
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Chief, which -- our base
rate's $380?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No, I think it's $389, --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: That's close enough.
MR. HOLLOWAY: -- right in that area.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: What would that rate have
to increase to? Just guess.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: To cover all the costs.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, last year, we -- was it last
year? We increased our rates 300 percent. And the -- to try
to get even. And the problem with that is, is you can't
really qet even, because Medicare disalloweds just keeps
getting higher. And then we figure that if we raise the rates
that much, then we're going to have people that won't pay.
The noncollectables will increase.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Do you have a feel for what
percent of your runs are for Medicare-eligible people?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, I think it's --
MR. MALONEY: 70.
MR. HOLLOWAY: -- 70 percent.
MR. COLEMAN: Chief, sounds like there's a
discrepancy from what it costs versus what Medicare will
reimburse. Is there a way to influence Medicare? Relative --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, they look at your history, and
8-9-06 jcc
z~
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
they -- in fact, I just read in the paper this morning,
they're reducing doctors' -- the amount of money they're going
to pay doctors 5 percent, so I'm not sure what they're going
to do with us, but it's -- we -- they look at a 5-year --
5-year?
MR. MALONEY: Yes.
MR. HOLLOWAY: They look at five years, and then
they base what your expenses are, and then they look at that.
But it -- it only goes up just a fraction.
MR. COLEMAN: So, they're forcing a subsidy.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chief, the other thing -- this
is just for your information, and I don't know if you've heard
this or not. I've also been told that there is some
argument -- and it probably will end up in litigation at some
point; you may just want to watch -- that the -- on the
Medicare, the 80 percent that they pay, that they're filing
suit somewhere, I can't remember which county in Texas, saying
that the tax revenue being collected, being that the taxes
that are paid are already -- that it's already included in the
-- I mean, it's that the residents are also paying, because
it's tax revenue. They're already subsidizing the EMS system;
therefore, Medicare should reimburse 100 percent. Because, I
mean, there's already that 20 percent already in there. Don't
know where that'll go, but that will certainly -- pretty big
8-9-06 jss
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
chunk of change if that works out. You might want to monitor
how that works.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I think one of the problems that we
may face is that our government subsidy is pretty small
compared to the amount of -- of our overall expense. I mean,
our budget is over $2 million. County subsidizing, if we --
this year will be about $450,000.
MR. HOFMANN: City and county.
MR. HOLLOWAY: City and county government.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Other medical service
providers are not losing money. They're -- they make a
profit. And many of them do not accept Medicare because they
can't make a profit if they accept Medicare. Is that a
solution?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I would think it would be a
real problem here, because a lot of those Medicare patients
will be nonpaid. If we don't -- if we don't accept Medicare,
then those -- some -- a lot of those people that are on
Medicare will not pay anything. And it's kind of hard to
throw somebody in jail because you took them to the hospital.
It's not like, you know, a speeding ticket or something like
that.
MR. COLEMAN: Don't a lot of Medicare patients have
supplemental insurance? Do you not find that?
MR. HOLLOWAY: We can't collect -- we can't collect
8-9-06 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
29
that.
MR. COLEMAN: Why is that?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's just the Medicare rules. A
lot of them do have supplemental, and that supplemental pays
for that 20 percent that Medicare doesn't pay.
MR. GROSS: How do we handle billing on frequent
destinations like La Hacienda and Starlite?
MR. HOLLOWAY: We just bill them, and they are
pretty good at paying.
MR. GROSS: Do they pay?
MR. HOLLOWAY: We don't have a lot of trouble in
those areas. And Medicare disalloweds is about $600,000 each
year, and then our non-pay is about 300, isn't it?
MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- you know, my whole
point, I just really would like to look at it. I mean, other
counties and other EMS systems are billing differently than
City of Kerrville bills, as -- working with the County or as
an agent for the County, whatever you want to say. I just
really would like to look at it. I'd like to have, you
know -- you know, one of the companies I'm sure they've heard
of is Alexander Associates, who's a collection agency in San
Antonio.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They have ideas.
8-9-06 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
MR. HOLLOWAY: We've dealt -- we've talked to them,
and they want -- 20 percent? Or 15 percent?
MR. MALONEY: I believe 10 to 15.
MR. HOLLOWAY: 10 or 15 percent of what they
collect. And we felt like, based that information and the
information they said that they could increase our collection
rate by, we felt like we wouldn't be making any ground.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's just a -- I mean, I
think that there's -- I just hope to get a willingness to look
at this issue. And if the County wants to -- to have a
different structure, I don't understand why the City would
object to that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Back to the original request
of dealing with the budget here today, I agree with
Commissioner Letz. I don't -- I don't have much of a problem.
I mean, I -- your service is excellent.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To our community. And I
understand the cost; it costs a lot of money to do that. So,
I'm certainly going to support the increase. This time. Next
year, I'm going to kill you. (Laughter.)
MR. HOLLOWAY: Wait --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're losing your only
confidante.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Wait two years, Buster, until do you
R 9 0 6 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
31
that.
MR. MEEK: Raymond, I have a question.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir?
MR. MEEK: It's really hard to get a handle on
your -- I'm sure, on your true cost, run cost, but how close
do you think 380 is to -- I mean, if you were to collect it,
would that cover your cost? What do you think your true cost
on an average run is? And don't worry -- don't worry about
the collection yet.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I don't think we've actually sat down
and figured that in a while.
MR. MEEK: To roll that crew and that equipment on
an average run, what is the marginal cost of that run?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, based on our budget, you
could -- it's probably about $500 or $600, depending on the
type of call.
MR. HOFMANN: And therein lies the big part of the
issue here that, so far, I don't think it's been -- I don't
think it's been discussed. There's -- there's a -- so far in
this meeting, at least -- undiscussed philosophical or policy
question about the extent to which you want the people who
effect the service to cover the cost of the service. And I
won't sit here and make this argument, because perhaps it's
not my argument to make, but it is true that the argument
could be made for an emergency response service like this one,
8-9-06 jcc
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
32
similar to fire, similar to even police, which no one argues
have those systems in place, and you have the capacity in
place to respond to people, whether or not everybody in the
county's going to call or the city's going to call for that
service. You -- and an argument could be made that you don't
develop a structure for paying for service like EMS that
counts on the people who call the EMS to pay for it. Because
even if you go through an entire year and you live out in
Hunt, and you never call for an ambulance, you still benefit,
and we need to have a -- we need to have the system capacity
in place to be able to serve you, whether you call or not.
And I think that's important.
And I think, back to Mr. Meek's point, that's why,
if you were to just simply look at the EMS budget and divide
it by the number of runs or whatever, you're going to get a
per-run cost that's going to be significantly higher than
$380. The question is, does the guy you're going out and
responding to, does he need to pay for all the capital and
facility long-term costs necessary to run that system? I
would venture that most communities that run an EMS system are
going to say no. And, certainly, almost every community that
runs a fire	system is	going	to say no,	and	the	-- I think	it's
appropriate	that the	general	government	pay	for	a portion	of
8-9-06 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
29
25
the cost of running a quality EMS service. Because -- how
much did we increase the rates last year Raymond? What
percentage?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Last year, none.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay. And the year before?
MR. HOLLOWAY: 10 percent.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay. We can increase rates. There's
a diminishing return that you're going to get from increasing
rates. You need to struggle with, I think, the -- the
philosophical question about the extent to which you want to
put that additional burden on the people who call for it. Is
it fair? Is it justifiable that the general government pay
for a portion of that service? And I think most communities
answer that question with a yes. The question is, what's the
right balance? And if the County Commissioners are asking us
to continue to be more aggressive and look under every rock
that maybe we haven't fully kicked over -- can we be more
aggressive with an out-of-state driver on Interstate 10?
Sure. We're more than happy to look at that. When I was in
Alvin, we ran an EMS service, and we significantly were able
to turn things around from a revenue to expense standpoint.
We didn't break even. By looking at one of those collection
agencies -- and if we've looked at that collection agency idea
before and the math didn't work, well, okay, maybe we just
didn't push hard enough. And if the City Council would like
fl-9-06 jcc
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
34
for us to look at that again and come back with some real
numbers, we're happy to do that. ~
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Let me follow up on that,
please. It's my understanding that when the City took over
the EMS responsibility from the private contractor -- I don't
know how many years ago that was.
MR. HOLLOWAY: 1994.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: '94?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay. The strategy then
was that rates for service would be set at a level that would
pay for the service, and that happened. And, gradually, we
failed to keep up that rate schedule to account for increasing
costs, capital and operating, till today we've fallen behind
$433,000 a year. Ten years from now, that'll be $5 million
that we fall behind -- an additional $5 million that we've
fallen behind. If the strategy was good in '94, why is it not
good in '06?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- I mean, I -- I really
agree with the City Manager on a lot of this. I mean, I
understand the strategy. I think that there is a value and
all taxpayers should pay to have a first-class EMS system, as
in a fire system. But I also think that you need to be as
aggressive as you possibly can to make it come as close to
breaking even as possible. I don't -- you know, if we, as a
8-9-06 jcc
1
N... 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
35
government or elected officials, wanted -- you know, said our
primary concern was to break even, then I think you privatize
and reduce your quality of service, and I don't think that's
So, I
need to be as -- as absolutely aggressive as possible on the
collections side, on the -- the rates. I mean, the reality is
that insurance of one kind or another, whether it be Medicare
or private, is paying this cost, and we need to maximize the
revenue that comes back from that whatever way we can. And I
don't think that we'll break even, but I think we can reduce
the subsidy.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I had accepted the fact that the
quality EMS service is going to have some governmental
subsidy, but I don't think that the government should
subsidize the actual users of the system. Let me explain what
I mean by that. Medicare allowances are going to be Medicare
allowances. Doesn't make any difference whether you charge
what they allow or twice what they charge or five times what
they charge. But if your actual cost is $600, for example,
and the actual user of that system is only being charged $380,
I think your rate's too low. I think that user ought to be
charged not less than the actual cost to serve that -- that
8-9-06 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
~' 2 4
25
user. Now, even with that, you're going to have a shortfall,
and those that don't use the service are paying for the
availability of having that service available. But I
charge should be no less than that, irrespective of whether
it's Medicare, no Medicare, or anything else. And that
will -- that will, I think, decrease this gap that much of the
subsidy has to apply to.
MR. MEEK: I would weigh in --
MR. GROSS: I've worked several hundred EMS calls in
but you could charge them whatever you want to charge them;
you're not going to get it. And I would like to say that in
1990, if you had an EMS emergency in this county, you probably
got basically a van and a cot. And, you know, with these guys
rolling in the last 10 years, EMS has changed in Kerrville
dramatically. And, by the way, if you ever have heart
problems, you'll be better off with a paramedic than a
surgeon. They know what they're doing. So, it's not just a
box with a cot in it. It's sophisticated equipment and
sophisticated training.
JUDGE TINLEY: The level of service is -- is superb.
8-9-n6 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
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think anyone has said we
should reduce service. I think we should just look at our --
the cost of it. There's a lot of residents, you're right,
that cannot afford it, but there's also a lot of people that
live in Comanche Trace that can afford it. And I think that
they should bill -- you know, and we're going to subsidize the
poor that can't afford it; that's a given. But we should try
to collect from those who can afford it. That's all I'm
saying.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: With respect to subsidy
versus pay, I have a question. An individual is picked up by
9-1-1 -- by an EMS box, and the nature of the person's problem
results in them being transported by helicopter to San
Antonio. Who gets the bill and who subsidizes the payment for
the helicopter to San Antonio?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, there's actually -- they get
I two bills.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
MR. HOLLOWAY: They'll get two bills. They'll get
one from us.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And depending if we transport that
patient from where they're injured to a landing site, we get
mileage, plus whatever equipment we use. But then they'll
also get a bill for the helicopter taking them to San Antonio.
B 9-06 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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And is there a subsidy that
we pick up for that?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Not for the helicopter.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: User pays, right?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. That's the only point
I want to make.
MR. HOLLOWAY: One thing I forgot to talk about on
our base rate, is there is a mileage charge to that, too. We
charge mileage on top of our base rate, and depending on how
far out we are. And that's a loaded mile, though. I mean, we
went all the way out to Falling Waters and didn't transport
that person, so we weren't able to charge them for that
mileage, but we did charge them a -- a trans -- I mean, a fee.
MR. MEEK: I'd like to say something. Perhaps that
mileage charge, you could look at raising that. That's one
thing. What I was really wanting to say was, I believe
there's a lot of doctor's offices that limit their Medicare --
Medicaid patients -- or Medicare patients, because they, quite
frankly, aren't making money off of the Medicare patients. We
can't limit our Medicare patients. But that doctor is
subsidizing -- actually, the patients who are not on Medicare
are subsidizing the ones who are. And I would -- I wouldn't
limit looking at the price we charge to people who have -- who
are not on Medicare to -- I mean, if the government's going to
d-9-06 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
39
be subsidizing, I don't see anything wrong with the ones who
are able to pay to also subsidize. I think that should be in
the mix., too.
MR. COLEMAN: Paul, to answer your question a while
ago, I -- I, as one, would support us looking at it a little
more close in terms of collection agencies and in terms of any
other cost savings that -- or billing increases we can do.
MR. HOFMANN: Great.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, the City doesn't enjoy having
indebtedness from our users of our service, but we will always
have people that don't have any insurance or can't afford it,
so we'll always have that debt. Also, in the last 12 years,
Medicare has changed their position. Medicare used to cover
nearly everything, and they're covering less and less and
less, and that will probably continue. But if there's any
better way of collecting this money, it would be great. You
know, I'd like to encourage people to have full medical
insurance and Medicare supplement and all that, but that's in
an ideal world, and we don't live in an ideal world. But if
there is some things that we can do, that Jonathan might
have -- or anybody has a better way of -- of doing it, I'm
sure the City Manager and I'm sure Raymond would -- would
enjoy hearing that information.
MR. HOLLOWAY: We've looked at those agencies.
We'll look again.
a 9 Oti jcc
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One last -- last comment.
Judge, I'm asking you, 'cause I don't see our Auditor here.
Indigent patients, those are that are -- you know, which is a
large number for the County; we have to pay almost $800,000 a
Does EMS -- does that get
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Yeah, that -- if -- once they
qualify under the indigent health care program, any reasonable
and necessary medical costs get --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are we double-paying, so to
speak, for the county? Is the County -- is the County -- an
EMS transport -- and I'm not really -- you know, I'm just --
this just came up; I really haven't thought this through. But
say there's an indigent patient anywhere, city or county. ThE
County's going to pay for that, whatever the billing rate is.
Which is -- you know, we're -- given the fact, you know,
8 percent of our budget's going to go to indigent health care,
regardless. If we're paying it, we pay it to the City? And
they get --
JUDGE TINLEY: Whoever the provider is gets paid.
But my simple answer to your question, Commissioner, would be
no, I don't think so, because what we're looking at funding is
what's not paid, the difference here that's not collected in
the way of service. I can see why you'd have that question in
your mind, but I think the simple answer is no, we're probably
8-9-06 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
41
not. Because --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Darn.
MR. HOFMANN: Good try.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice try.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good try, Jon.
MR. MEEK: Does that mean if someone doesn't pay
their EMS bill, y'all will? Is that what that says?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I know that our indigent
health care is a pretty big bill every month.
MR. MEEK: That's a good solution. That solved the
problem, Jon. I appreciate that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, as soon as we get to
8 percent, at least we get some state money coming in.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Simply put, we're funding
our own shortfall, right?
JUDGE TINLEY: Ms. Banik's trying to keep a record
here, and I hope we'd respect that. What we are doing,
Commissioner, is that what would otherwise be uncollected or
unfunded, and which would then have to be dealt with jointly
by these two bodies, we're picking up a portion of that, and
then going and picking up half of -- half of the balance.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, disproportionate, that's probably
true. But we're -- what we're doing is paying -- you may want
to look at it as three-fourths, but that's -- I don't see it
B-9 Oti 1cc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
as a payment twice.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, okay. Not three-fourths
-- anyway, I don't know how you -- it would be very difficult
to calculate. I just thought I'd bring it up. I always like
to bring up indigent health care in public so the taxpayers
understand how much money this -- they are paying, whether
they live in the city or the county, for indigent health care,
which is -- for us right now is about 800,000 a year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Our -- our proposed budget going into
this next year is, I think, between 950 -- 935 and 950, in
that range.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 950,000, almost a million
dollars a year going for indigent health care in this county.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one quick
question, Judge. Is the -- on your document that you sent to
us, you talk about the County share on EMS and the City's
share. The County share is, what, about 30,000 greater than
the City's. Is that due to the First Responder costs being
rolled in?
MR. HOLLOWAY: All that's rolled into this figure
this year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, okay, that difference
would be First Responder cost?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes.
g- 9- fi b ] C C
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
2q
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's a big portion of that, 'cause
it's all -- all of the -- last year it was all broken out in
different costs, and this year it's all --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's why I asked.
MR. HOFMANN: Oh, now -- right. Sorry, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: That includes --
MR. HOFMANN: It's everything.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- First Responders, First Responder
expenses and training, and Medical Director.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's all rolled into that one
figure.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And I believe also rent on the EMS
building.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And rent on the EMS building, your
portion of that.
MR. HOFMANN: Right. And we owe you a --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: -- an interlocal agreement that we'll
bring by the City Council, then you, by the end of the fiscal
year that'll specify all that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through with the EMS
issue for now?
8-9-OG jcc
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
44
MR. BOCK: Judge, I'm going to go back to the issue
Mr. Letz brought about the billing. Are you satisfied with
I just would --
you're saying, and maybe there's a way this year to look at it
and see -- if we have a run, we could possibly supply you guys
with the county runs, and you could look at that and say, what
could we possibly go get above and beyond, maybe, or something
like that. Or is it satisfactory, then?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think even -- I mean,
satisfactory. I think it's one of these things -- I hate to
come out of these meetings and just overburden -- just have a
whole bunch of committees studying things. You know, I think
all we're doing is creating a lot of busy work. I'd really
rather, you know, rely on -- the City Manager said he'll look
at it to see if there are ways we can be more aggressive in
our billing, and at some point in the coming months, coming
back and say yes, no, whatever. And I'll be glad to -- if he
wants to talk to me about it, I can mention who I've talked
to, you know, where a lot of my thoughts are coming from.
MR. HOFMANN: Be happy to.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Can I say one more thing? Then I'll
8-5-06 jcc
1
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
reason Bandera can -- their expenses are so much lower is
they're almost all volunteer. They have a few paid people,
and that reduces the cost a whole lot.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quite a bit.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes. So that -- you know.
MR. MEEK: So, that was your suggestion?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, depends on what quality of
service you want, but some of the volunteer departments, you
know, they can come closer to breaking even than the paid,
probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we through kicking around
EMS for a while?
MAYOR SMITH: One thing. My brother was involved in
an accident. The helicopter ride from Doss to San Antonio was
about $9,000.
JUDGE TINLEY: Cost of fuel's up.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Mayor, he didn't ask in
advance how much it cost.
MAYOR SMITH: No, sure didn't.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: When I'm out there on
Shoemaker Crossing bleeding, I don't call 9-I-1 and say, "How
much does it cost for an ambulance ride to the hospital? And,
oh, by the way, do you take Medicare?" And when you -- when
you transport me, and you did, if my insurance company doesn't
8-9-06 l~=c
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
46
PaY~ I PaY•
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And there's a whole lot
more like me out there that will pay you three times 380 to be
transported to the hospital.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, next subject. Where are we
going, gentlemen?
MAYOR SMITH: What do you want to go to next?
MR. HOFMANN: Me? Want to talk about fire, since
we're on public safety?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple of questions.
Did you say fire contract?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have a couple of questions.
I will -- I will probably -- just up front here, I'll probably
not vote to approve the increase in that contract, because I
don't see -- I understand your theories of the reasons we
should, but I -- I disagree with them. I think us having a
contract and you providing a service, and your thinking is --
is that you need to build new fire stations and new people,
you know, in the future city of Kerrville and all that. I
understand that. But I -- all I want the County to do is pay
for the service that we receive. And I kind of equate it to,
8-9-06 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
if we contract with the City to pick up your dead animals,
well, we're thinking about building a new animal facility, and
we also need to fix the road out by Mo Ranch, and we'd like
for y'all to pay for that too. So, it's just -- you know, the
thing doesn't work. But I want to talk about the contract
just for a second, one portion of the contract, where we're
talking about structure fires. And, Raymond, this is a
question for you. In the contract, it says that -- you know,
it talks about the volunteer fire department responding in
four minutes, and then the City will go to -- be dispatched to
the fire. And the City -- and here is a quote -- the City
will send a fire truck.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Now, are we talking about a
little fire? What kind of fire truck?
MR. HOLLOWAY: We only have one kind of fire truck,
and it's a pumper. I'm not talking about the brush truck.
We're talking about our pumper, whatever pumper we have ir. the
city limits. You know, it'll pump 1,500 gallons of water a
minute, same thing we use inside the city limits.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then how much -- how much
water does it carry?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, our trucks carry about
700 gallons of water.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, if you pulled up to a
8-9-Oo jcc
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
48
structure fire with 700 gallons a minute, with a truck that'll
pump 1,500 --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, it's capable of pumping that
I much.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me?
MR. HOLLOWAY: It's capable of pumping that much.
When we're in the county where there's very limited water, if
we're in an area that has very limited water, our guys are
trained to not -- you know, that's if you use all the
discharges. They'll probably use two preconnect inch and
three-quarter lines, and they'll watch the amount of flow best
they can until the volunteer department or a county tanker or
something there can bring us more water.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. If -- if -- see, I'm
concerned about that part. If somebody shows up to help. So,
theoretically, you could pull up there and squirt water for 30
seconds, and you're through.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, it would take a little longer
than that, but you're right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 35 seconds.
MR. HOLLOWAY: If we don't have any water -- excuse
me -- we'd have to go to whatever the nearest water supply
would be to get more water. But we -- we've got a pretty good
relationship with the volunteer departments, and, you know,
when we roll up, they -- they know -- and they also need
F-9-O6 jcc
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
water. So that, you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand.
MR. HOLLOWAY: -- we have a pretty good supply of
water coming.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. But, you
know, I think about these things, and I think about the
possibility of paying this kind of money for a fire truck to
spend a possibility of 30 seconds or a minute at a fire, and
then you'd no longer have anything to do. It just -- what I'd
like to see is, I'd like to see this agreement -- this
contract rewritten, and let's specify what type of fire truck,
how many gallons of water and how many people. Let's see.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Generally, three people on that
truck. A lot of times we send a brush truck also with
additional people, depending on the situation, whether we --
they need help out there or not. And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Buster, are you going to read
the paragraph that's contradicting?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm about to talk about it
here. I don't know that I want -- yeah, I am, as a matter of
fact. Let's talk about the grass fire part of the contract.
Raymond and I have talked prior to this meeting. We talked
about this paragraph in here, and neither one of us can
believe what we're reading.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I can explain why that happened.
8-9-06 jcc
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We want to hear it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Read it.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Read it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We want you to do that, if
you don't mind. Item B, Grass Fire. "The City shall not
respond to a call or report of a fire that predominantly
involves grass and other vegetation unless a call for help is
made by the fire department located in the area of the fire.
In the event the City receives a call of this type, the City
shall relay the call to the appropriate fire department in the
county." The way I am reading that is, Center Point has a big
brush fire, and they call you for help. What this says is
that you're going to call them right back and tell them they
have a fire. (Laughter.)
MR. HOLLOWAY: I know. That's exactly what that --
or pretty close to what that says. It wasn't the intent --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what it says.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That wasn't the intent of that. The
intent of that -- and that was in there before I took over.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I know that.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And the intent of that was that if
someone calls from that area -- say, like, you're driving by
and you call and say, "Hey, there's a big brush fire in Center
Point."
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh.
8 9-OV jcc
51
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLLOWAY: Then the dispatcher will call the
Center Point Volunteer Fire Department and ask -- and tell
them, and if it is a brush fire, out of control, and they need
our assistance, we'll go. The problem -- the problem was that
someone driving down the interstate or down the highway -- and
it may be a controlled burn, so we wouldn't respond until we
found out it was out of control. That was the -- I believe
the intent of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, except that --
MR. HOLLOWAY: But I agree, that needs to be
~ changed.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Except that it says that a
call for help is made by the fire department located in that
area.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I agree.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN:
somebody driving down the road.
rewritten.
The fire department, not
This whole thing needs to be
MR. HOLLOWAY: And I don't have a -- in fact, I
would like to -- to write that to where it spells out a little
bit better what the responses would be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Chief, do your trucks have
drafting capability?
MR. HOLLOWAY: The brush truck's the only one that
~ does. No, sir.
8-5-Oh jcc
52
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Pardon?
before in Commissioners Court on this topic -- is that if
you're going to look at a capacity, you know, to fight fire,
and that's what I think Mr. Hofmann was doing, I think you
have to put into that mix the total budget for every volunteer
fire department in the county, because there are -- whether --
you know, and I think we also probably need to look at the
mutual aid agreements and tighten that up a little bit. My
understanding from the fire departments' point of view -- the
volunteer fire departments' point of view, they feel by law
that exists, whether it's in writing or not. They're going to
say there is an obligation by law for the volunteer fire
departments to go into the city if there's a need, and
vice-versa. So -- but it probably doesn't hurt to put that in
writing, but I think that the -- and history shows that where
there's an emergency, from a fire standpoint, the City
responds into the county with a lot more than a pumper truck.
And if there is a need for the volunteer fire departments to
come into the city, history shows that they will do that en
masse.
8-9-06 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
So, I think that the -- you know, if you're going to
look at capacity and building for the whole structure, you
can't look at the -- build the City's fire department on the
county capacity without taking all the volunteer fire
departments into -- into that mix and figuring -- I don't know
how do you that. But I think that -- I mean, I know that the
-- and then it even gets more complicated. You have Comfort
in Kendall County, but they respond and they're primary in a
huge part of eastern Kerr County. But the -- I mean, I know
that Ingram, the Comfort and the Hunt fire departments, they
probably have as many trucks as Kerrville does. I mean, they
have, I think, five or six trucks in Comfort. I know Hunt's
got a couple of new ones. Ingram has a whole -- you know, a
lot. So, I think there's a huge firefighting capacity in Kerr
County, which is great. But I think if we're going to look at
the approach that Mr. Hofmann wants to look at, I think you
have to include all those volunteer fire departments with it.
And at this point, I mean, I don't know if we have the time to
do that kind of analysis.
I'd like to see the contract amount stay where it
is, look at the contracts and have some discussions throughout
the year, and next -- you know, early next budget year, look
at if adjustments needs to be made, how we look at it.
Because the County does fund all the volunteer fire
departments to another hundred-some thousand dollars a year,
8-9-06 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
and that needs to be all included, I think. So, I don't have
a problem looking at it, but I don't think we have enough
information to do it this year.
MAYOR SMITH: Let me ask a question about ISO
ratings. Does -- the people in the county, outside the city,
do they get a more favorable ISO rating -- insurance rating by
having a manned fire department available to go out into the
area? That's a -- the ISO rating has a heck of an impact on
your -- the insurance that people pay, and I was just
wondering if there is an insurance advantage, an ISO rating
advantage, having a staffed fire department available to go
into the county. Do you know anything about that?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. They do get a discount,
especially the people in the Kerrville South area, because
we're the first responders into that area. I think all the
homeowners in the ET J, just in the surrounding area, because
we have a contract to run into that area, they get -- I think
they're a 9 instead of maybe a 10.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's also, in that -- in
the discounted area, there are things that a lot of people in
the county do, such as most -- almost all water tanks now,
which almost every resident in the county has, has a
fire-threaded hookup, which gives you a discount, too. I'm
not sure if that discount's the same as the other discount.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I think it's part of it.
B 9-06 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
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's -- you know, there
are, you know, discounts that county residents can get in lieu
of having a manned fire department.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, I know adding this Fire Station
Number 4, which we're putting in our budget, will change the
ISO rating down, and nearly every -- every homeowner in the
city will save probably --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, if it's reduced -- if it's
reduced to a 2, which we're currently a 3, it'll save all
homeowners 8 percent. And --
MAYOR SMITH: Pretty substantial amount of money.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And business owners also will get the
same amount.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, also, there's a --
there's a savings out in the county when there's fire hydrants
in the community a certain distance from the home and all
that. But I would like for you to take me out in the county
and show me a fire hydrant that you could hook your pumper to.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I'd rather not do that, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Huh?
MR. HOLLOWAY: I'd rather not do that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, because it's not
available. There's not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's only one I know of,
Commissioner, and that goes back to the soil conservation
a-y-oE ~~~
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
program where they put dry hydrants in -- that's what
Commissioner Letz was referring to -- put dry hydrants in to
make big tanks or a lake or so forth, which gives the
opportunity to draft. But if a city vehicle goes out and they
don't have the drafting capability, it's irrelevant.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you couldn't hook a
pumper to one of those things.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I think Saddlewood and Horizon
and Maplewood and some of those areas probably do. One of the
fallbacks to that would be the amount of water available. I
mean, if you have a huge fire, it probably would drain the
tank, but they have that capability.
MR. COLEMAN: Chief, what is a typical response with
volunteer fire departments? Do they respond first and
evaluate the situation? If they feel they need more
assistance, they'll then call you?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir, that's the way it's set up
right now.
MR. COLEMAN: And then you don't respond unless they
I do call?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct, except for the
Kerrville South area. Now, the Kerrville South area, we -- we
respond as soon as the call comes in. We're the primary
responders to that area, and that Kerrville South area is
huge. It's -- it's like -- it's probably twice as big as the
8-9-06 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
city limits.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in your question, I think
the -- the response, based on the data the Chief provided to
us, is that outside the -- Kerrville South contracted area,
it's about four times last year? I think it was four times.
Three?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Response? Responses?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where y'all send trucks out in
the county. It's pretty -- it's minimal. It's not a large
number. And most of the --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, structure fires --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reality is that in the
county, if you have a structure fire, it's going to burn. I
mean, they might be able to salvage a building nearby.
Whether it be volunteer or the city, 'cause of response time,
you're not going to get anything. So, the majority of the
volunteer fire departments are set up to -- for brush fires
and containment, because the structure -- it's just a given,
you really can't do much. And there's a -- I mean, even if
you have -- the response time of volunteer fire departments is
pretty quick to get their initial truck out there, but even
with that, I mean, it's just not going to save most
structures.
MAYOR SMITH: Fire departments are something that,
if you need them, you need them, and you hope you never need
e e-oh 1~c
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
them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Exactly.
MAYOR SMITH: But you have to have the equipment
available in case you do.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Let me talk a second about the brush
fires. You know, we're really set up to send just a brush
truck to the brush fires, but we send a pumper every time a
brush truck rolls, because we don't have enough personnel to
man that, so we send a pumper out there for manpower until we
get our off-duty people in. Because what we have to do is
take a firefighter off a fire truck to put on that brush
truck, and then if it's a good working fire, we may send as
many as 20 guys out there, depending on how long it takes. We
send a lot more equipment out there than really what's in the
contract. You alluded to that earlier.
MR. MEEK: Raymond, I know you rely on the volunteer
pumper -- or the trucks, the tankers. Is it -- would it be
worthwhile to develop drafting capability for your prime
trucks?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, the -- the amount of times that
we would use that -- I mean, our trucks are pretty well loaded
down, and to find a place to put a hose on so that they can --
they're capable of drafting -- let me back up. They can
draft. They just don't have a hard suction that you -- you
need two sections of hard suction or maybe more to reach
B-9 06 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
whatever the water supply is. But those trucks are capable of
drafting; all of them are.
MAYOR SMITH: The small volume of water you have in
the fire truck, if you're using chemicals, that more or less
multiplies that volume?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right.
MAYOR SMITH: We have the capability of using --
MR. HOLLOWAY: All of our trucks --
MAYOR SMITH: -- more than water?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Sure, and we do dump some of the
chemicals into the tank. Some of them have tanks of their
own. The new truck that we're looking at is a compressed air
foam system, and that will be built into that. And all that
reduces the amount of water needed to fight fire.
MAYOR SMITH: So, your water's multiplied by the use
of chemicals in a lot of cases?
JUDGE TINLEY: Four to one.
MR. HOFMANN: Let me, if I might -- okay, what we
were trying to accomplish here was take a first step towards
creating some sort of funding methodology that -- that is
reasonable and -- and makes sense and can be justified. We've
been using that $125,000 number, and in my assessment, there's
no real logic behind that. And we -- when you think about the
-- the extent to which we -- we need to be ready to provide
service throughout the county and the extent to which city
fl-9 Oh 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
residents are paying for that readiness right now, $125,000 to
me, just, frankly, isn't a very reasonable number. We
attempted to come up with a methodology for allocating that
cost which I think is pretty fair and pretty -- and pretty
balanced. We looked at the cost of one crew, one truck, and
we allocated the capital costs associated with that by the
same proportion, and that's where we got that number from.
There is nothing in here about future fire stations. This is
about the existing system, the existing capacity. I recognize
that it would be a significant increase, and maybe it's too
much of an increase, and maybe we still haven't struck that
right balance. Mr. Letz, I think your comment about somehow
including in the math the existence of that existing
infrastructure out there, I think that makes sense. And, no,
you're right, we didn't look at that. We could take a shot at
that. My message to -- to you guys is, okay, $336,000, which
is the result of our math, to me -- I think that's arguably a
pretty good deal for the City of Kerrville to be able to run
out to the entire county, and I think the County would be
hard-pressed to find a better deal than that. On the other
hand, that's a big increase over $125,000. I recognize that
too, and if we need to work harder on finding the right
balance, that's what this is all about. We'll do it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Another way we might look
at it is that we pay Kerrville $125,000 to handle one of our
8-9-06 jcc
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
61
10 primary fire areas, Kerrville South.
MR. HOFMANN: We provide service to the entire
county.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah. You ran 12 times in
the last two years -- 29, excuse me. And we don't pay that
much to our other nine providers.
MR. COLEMAN: Do we have a sense of how many runs we
have to make to Kerrville South?
MR. HOLLOWAY: We don't have them broken out that
way just into the county. We'd have to go manually and -- I'm
sorry, we do have it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, I think you do.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah. Structure fires, we made four
last year and eight this year. Other fires, we made 59 last
year, and 39 this year -- so far this year.
MR. MEEK: County-wide?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, that's to the Kerrville South
area.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Kerrville South.
MR. MEEK: Oh, just Kerrville South?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's Kerrville South.
MR. MEEK: Do you have the rest of the county?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, that isn't broken --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think it was 24 in the
last two years.
8-9-06 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
62
MR. HOLLOWAY: I'm sorry. Yes, it is -- it's right
above there. I'm sorry, I didn't have this. This is what we
sent the County, anyway. Structure fires into the rest of the
county is four and four; that's last year. And this year,
other fires, eight and eight. And grass and brush fires, 12
and 11. So, we're making a lot more calls into the Kerrville
South area, of course, than we are the rest of the county.
MAYOR SMITH: Your arms are getting short.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir, they are.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in the Kerrville South area,
I mean, it's -- there are volunteer fire departments that
cover that as well. I mean, it is -- Kerrville's dispatched
first, but Center Point, Ingram, Turtle Creek respond almost
-- you know, as well. So, it's not -- even though we refer to
it as Kerrville South's the, you know, City of Kerrville's
area, it's their -- they send a truck. The other, you know,
fire departments -- volunteer fire departments are also
covering that area as well.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah. If there's a structure fire,
we call those guys for assistance. And depending on the size
of the brush fire, grass fire, we call them also.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. So, it's -- I mean,
they're -- I mean, they're working together. It's not an
either/or.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're not sending -- City of
8-9-U6 jcc
63
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
Kerrville doesn't respond to the far reaches of east or west;
is that correct?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No, we do to the east.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Go all the way to the county
I line east?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah. Well, Comfort Volunteer Fire
Department, they're the first responders in some part of that
east area.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
MR. HOLLOWAY: But we will go over there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They -- Comfort Volunteer Fire
Department's all the way up to Hill Country Ranch Estates,
which is almost to the city limits. The Comfort Fire
Department area is huge, and they have a big -- very -- they
probably have the largest, outside maybe Ingram, maybe even as
large as Ingram Volunteer Fire Department, because they cover
pretty much Hill Country Ranch Estates to the Comfort side of
Whiskey Canyon, all the way past Sisterdale almost to Boerne.
They have a huge geographic area. That's why they have a very
large department.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, I personally like the science
and the methodology, the logic of having a way to get to the
number, whatever it is. It does sound maybe to me that, with
the volunteer departments out there, it might be a little bit
high, at least this year. Is there an alternative, Paul?
8-9-OV jcc
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
zo
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOFMANN: Is there an alternative?
MR. COLEMAN: Is there an alternative way we can
modify our calculation, some independent sort of logic?
MR. HOFMANN: Sure. I'd like to think about Mr.
Letz' suggestion here a bit. Yeah, we would -- we'd be happy
to grapple with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We fund about -- I mean, to the
county fire departments -- volunteer fire departments, $13,000
a year to each one, and then they raise a huge amount of money
in their budgets. I don't know what their budgets are, but
they've got to be pretty substantial. Obviously, they don't
have labor, which helps them a lot, but they still have a lot
of money that they have to raise in grants and other things.
But -- and it's all -- I guess my point is, and I think the --
you know, and Paul, I think, agrees, is that it's a -- it's a
capacity that needs to be built in.
MR. HOFMANN: Right. It's the existing out there.
MR. COLEMAN: And I agree with that as well.
MR. HOFMANN: Sure.
MR. COLEMAN: However that -- whatever amount that
should be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't -- I mean, 1 don't
have a problem with trying to figure out what -- a formula to
come up with what that amount is. I mean, I -- but I just
think you need t.o look at that. If you look at the whole
e-9-o6 jco
1
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
picture, you need to look at the whole picture.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we kind of kicked around fire
enough? Why don't we take a 10-, 15-minute break here? We'll
give Kathy a little break and get back to it.
(Recess taken from 10:26 a.m. to 10:40 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, why don't we come back to
order? Where do we go from here, gentlemen? I believe the
mayor mentioned that he wanted to talk about the library.
MAYOR SMITH: Yes, sir, if we could.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MAYOR SMITH: I saw a lot of faces back here and I
wondered what they were at the meeting for, and it finally
dawned on me what they were here for. So, if we can handle
the library next, I'm sure they'd appreciate it.
MR. BENHAM: Amen.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have just a general comment
for discussion. I think -- I mean, we obviously go round and
round every year about this, and it's probably one of the more
difficult topics, because it's -- compared to EMS and fire,
it's a discretionary -- more of a discretionary expenditure,
which I think makes it, you know, a little bit more difficult
to deal with. The other part of it is that -- where I've had
a real problem with it, I think that the library -- we
certainly need a library. I support a library. But the usage
8-9-OG jcc
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
,_,, 2 4
25
66
of the library is dominated by city of Kerrville residents,
and those are being doubly taxed right now for the use of that
library, 'cause they're paying county taxes and city taxes,
whereas the other county residents don't pay it -- I mean, the
reality is, they don't use the library that much, at least in
my precinct that live in the county. We are operating the
library the way we do because that's the way the Butt
Foundation or the Butt family set it up originally. I've not
ever really looked at those documents, but, you know, it may
be time for one or the other to take over that facility and
put it behind us, 'cause I don't see the discussions that
we're having over how it's run and budgets changing from year
to year. And I'd like to get an opinion from the City
Attorney and the County Attorney, based on how that library
was set up and given to the County and the City, how do we
undo it? Or is it even possible to undo it? And at least to
have that as a -- something that we're aware of, 'cause I
truly have no idea whether we can do that. There may be some
kind of a clause that prevents us from doing it without it
reverting to some entity that we don't want to happen, so
that's kind of one thing. I'd like to look at some options,
because this is a -- I just -- I think that everyone at the
table probably dreads this discussion every year, because we
know it's going to be a difficult one.
MR. COLEMAN: In my opinion, it's the hardest one we
8-9-06 jcc
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
67
face.
MR. MEEK: I have a question. Perhaps one of our
attorneys here could answer this. But was it set up as a free
library in those original documents?
MR. HAYES: You know, Mr. Meek, I don't recall.
What do you mean? You mean those exact words used?
MR. MEEK: I think that is -- I think that is a
definition of library -- libraries. In other words, you don't
charge substantially for the service. And I -- oh, here we
go.
MR. MARTINEZ: As far as the operation, per city
charter, yes, it is set up as a free library under the
statutes of the state of Texas.
MR. MEEK: Can you tell us what that means,
basically?
MR. MARTINEZ: It means that there -- there is a
limit on the fees that can be charged. There are only certain
things allowed for charging.
MR. MEEK: Do you remember if that language was
contained in the original agreement that the Butts --
MR. MARTINEZ: That was their -- the direction they
wanted. It didn't state it in terms of the state law, but
yes, that's the direction they wanted.
MR. MEEK: In the agreement, it uses that
terminology?
6-9-06 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
68
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, they wanted a jointly-operated
City/County-funded library. Free public library, yes.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mr. Meek?
MR. MEEK: That's significant. Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I don't know what happened
back then. That's probably exactly what happened. The
reality today is that you need to be a free library by
definition under the state code in order to qualify to
participate in programs that are very viable to do this, so it
becomes -- giving up the status of free library is not an
option. Now, there's a half step -- a half measure there.
The -- under the code, the County could discontinue funding
the library, and then county -- people who live outside the
city, but live in the county, could be charged whatever fees
the traffic would bear, and it would still be a free library
by definition.
MR. HOFMANN: Free municipal library.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Yeah.
MR. MEEK: The question, I believe, earlier was, do
we know -- you mentioned possibly undoing that deal. What --
does anyone know what the ramifications -- if that's even
possible?
JUDGE TINLEY: I've never seen the documentation by
which this whole creature was launched, and I'd like to see
that documentation. I'm -- in fact, I made a note on the City
8-9-06 lcc
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
69
Manager's letter of, "Where is this document? I'd like to see
it.
MR. HOFMANN: We can certainly --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've got on it my desk,
Judge. I'll show it to you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good. Good.
MR. MEEK: Can you answer our questions on the
I document?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't want to answer
questions on it. I went back and researched the county
minutes and the documents that flowed from or were a part of
Commissioners Court meetings going back into, I believe,
1965-'66 and in that time frame which the -- the funding
agreements came, and I'll be happy to share them with whomever
wants to look at them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- the reason -- you
know, and for this year, you know, I think the County needs to
fund close to what the City's asking. That's just my personal
feeling on that, but I just think, directionally, we've --
something's got to be done. And I think what has happened --
and I'm looking at this from a, you know, planning standpoint.
How can an entity like the library do long-term planning when
every year there's a battle over funding? Like, to the
point -- I mean, you can't do it. It just doesn't work, the
way it's working. And, you know, I have -- you know, none of
B-9-06 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
70
my constituents are happy. Those that live in the city say
they're paying taxes twice, and those that live out further,
out of the city, generally say, "Why should we have to pay it
at all?" You know, 'cause they don't use it. So, it's a --
you know, my constituents are unhappy with the way it's
working out and the costs of it. But at the same time, I
clearly believe we need to have a library, and that's oper. to
the public; I think that is a good thing. Directionally, what
that library looks like in a, you know, 5-, 10-, 20-year plan,
I mean, that's another consideration. I tend to share a lot
of views that Commissioner Nicholson does, that what's on the
Internet more and more is the research part of it, and a lot
of it is being replaced by computers. But there's still a
need for a library, certainly. Hopefully, we'll always have a
need for books and people that read novels and --
MR. COLEMAN: Well, Jonathan, from a planning
standpoint, our -- our options, I guess -- I know the -- a
library district has been recommended and kicked around, and
that might be one fair way that -- that all of the residents
of the city and the county would end up supporting -- paying
taxes to support the library. Although there's a chance --
the off side of that is that our -- our taxes would go up.
Another alternative, I guess, would be if somehow it was
determined that the City took it over in its entirety, there
25 I would still need to be some kind of mechanism, user-pay or
s-y-o6 ~~~
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
71
somehow, that county users would help share some of that cost,
and that would be difficult. I'm not -- I'm not real sure
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think those -- those, that I
see, are the two options, I think the library district, float
it. If it -- you know, if it works and there's some support
that there likely is in this county for that, I think it would
solve the problems in that direction. It becomes a -- it's
removed from the City budget and the County budget; it becomes
a separate	entity. The other option is a --	really,	in
reality, is	more of a City-run city library.	And the	City
would then	charge county residents what is a	n appropr	iate
amount, and	I think it should, you know, be	basically	user-pay
as much as	possible.		
C	OMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've long	-- sorry,	Judge.
Go ahead.
JUDGE TINLEY: On the user-pay issue -- and I think
xreeze puL in place, too. 1 aon't have the numbers. My sense
of it is that, proportionately, those with more free time have
the ability to use the library and do use the library, and
that's going to be primarily the retirees that have that time
available to them. And, of course, the County now has in
place the over-65 tax freeze. The City's fate is hanging in
the balance now, but if that passes on the city side,
8-9 06 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
72
you're -- you're laying this more and more on the -- what I
believe to be more the non-users than the users.
MR. COLEMAN: Judge, what --
JUDGE TINLEY: So, on a user-pay basis, I have -- I
have a concern that we're getting more away from it as opposed
to passing that cost of operation on to the users themselves.
And it's a discretionary service. It's not like calling --
calling for law enforcement, calling for a fire or calling for
emergency medical services.
MR. GROSS: You know, I might take issue with you
just a little bit. We have a good library, but we don't have
a great library. And whether or not one is discretionary, you
could argue, but in terms of the value to society of a
well-educated, well-read, well-informed society, the library
is a very important thing. And I think what we need to do
is -- and I like Commissioner Letz' comment about let's think
about where we're going years down the road. We need to
define what constitutes a great library in the year 2025, and
work -- I mean, maybe it's -- books will disappear. I don't
know. Maybe it's more computers. Maybe it's -- maybe
computers become ubiquitous and people have them at home. I
don't know, but we need to think about it. I think that as a
governing group, our responsibility is to encourage use of the
library, and not discourage it through the users fees. I
think the library has done a fairly paor job of reaching out

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
73
to potential users in the county. Maybe there should be some
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not advocating that we not a have
a library, or we have a good or a great library. My position
is, generally, to the extent that it's feasible, those that
use the library should be more responsible for the cost of its
operation than those that don't.
MR. GROSS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS
I've long advocated and do
believe the only way you would ever get the voters to support
that initiative would be for the City and the County both to
pledge removing the amount we support -- financial support out
of our budgets now, and that that -- whatever that amount is,
collectively, reduced to pennies on a tax rate, becomes the
basis of a budget for -- for a library district. I believe --
I believe that's the only way you could get people to support
it so that you could get past the argument that it's double
taxation. I believe the library needs to have support, needs
to know that the support can increase. I believe the people
I
who pay the bills should be able to know, as the Councilman
points out, that the library services are going to improve.
But they need to be -- they need to answer totally to a
8 9-06 jcc
74
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
library district board of directors who sets the policy and
the direction for the library, and based on its operational
needs, sets the tax rate for that, and the City and the County
graciously back away from it. We set it up. I think that's
the way it ought to go.
MR. COLEMAN: And, Bill, I'm not -- I'm not stating
that I think the taxes would increase. I'm -- all I was
stating is that that is one of the common concerns with
setting up a library district.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand. That's
legitimate.
MR. COLEMAN: And I don't know --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't have to be, though.
MR. COLEMAN: I don't have that knowledge.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's a legitimate concern,
but it doesn't have to be that way. i
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I want to tell the City
Council what I previously told Commissioners Court. By the
way, I'm the County's liaison to the Library Board. I'm on
the Library Board. The library process this year was very
good. We did a very complete and thorough job of going
through the budget. In my opinion, there's not -- if you're
going to have the kind of library you got today, there's not
much room for -- for cost reduction. There's not much -- much
or any fluff in the budget, so it's -- it's a well thought out
8-9-OE jcc
1
- z
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
•- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"' 2 4
25
~s
role and the makeup of the Library Board. There are people
who are smart about library things, and they're working hard
to do a good job of being advisers on the library.
MR. BOCK: I would just like to make a comment on
the fact that Mr. Lipscomb -- the other day, I made mention to
him, my fear is, and I think I'm getting consensus from
everybody, if we're going to plan for the future of this
library and where it goes from here, we need to change
something. Because coming in every year, this being my second
year, and doing a library -- I don't think we're doing the
library any justice in this way.
MR. COLEMAN: I agree with that, too.
MR. BOCK: So I totally agree with a long-term plan
so that we have some money -- going to appropriate some money
for, you know, the continuation of the study, and -- of the
library and expansion of the library. Well, you know, I'm
kind of concerned, in doing that, if -- if there is going to
be -- if we're back here next year and then have to take our
partners in it and say, "Look, you know, here's where we want
to go with the library," and -- and then the -- the amount of
money is not appropriate and the County doesn't have the
funds. And, you know, I -- and I like the way that the -- the
B-9-OF 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
76
library and the board is operating right now. It's almost
like a perfect scenario, that if you had that taxing district,
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
superfluous. Now, if you create a -- try to create a shared
vision, it's going to be pretty interesting discussion. I
believe that, for example, the brick-and-mortar libraries are
going to be displaced by electronic libraries. Others feel
very passionately that that's not going to happen, and who
knows what's right? But the discussion needs to occur.
The -- you need to work toward a shared vision before you
start planning on what you're going to do with the current
facilities.
MAYOR SMITH: And that's one thing, when we mention
the library, they're humans that work there. And those
people -- if I was working for an outfit that had to be funded
every year, I would sure be a little nervous about, will my
job be there next year? So we need to resolve this somehow so
we can -- we can keep -- or hire competent people. I'm not
saying the people that are there are not competent, but we --
a_9-o5 ~~~
~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
we need to -- we need to have a staff at the library, because
that's important. When the library issue came up, I travel a
lot, and I went to about 10 libraries up in New England, a
couple in Tennessee, and some in California. But the thing
that was used in those places are the computers. They had a
-- the people waiting, and they had the time schedules where
you could only use it -- so, we might be going to computerized
libraries, but there are also some people who don't have
computers. So, it was -- it was something. But this needs to
be resolved. I've heard several talks about district --
creating it, and somebody even mentioned going to the adjacent
counties, not only Kerrville and Kerr County. What -- what
would be the boundary of that -- of that taxing authority?
You know, it would be real complicated to include some of
Bandera and some of Gillespie and some of these other
counties. So, the -- the taxing district is not an easy
thing. And also, the taxing district would have to provide a
lot of the technical management things that would be pretty
difficult. You know, the City is doing those things now. And
somebody said, "Well, if we set up a taxing district, we'll
let the City keep doing the legal and all these things."
Well, you'd have to have	an operating agreement	and so	forth.
i So, the taxing district -	- I assume that if we	do have	a
taxing district, it'll just be Kerrville and Kerr County.
COMMISSIONF,R WILLIAMS: Kerr County, basically.
8-9-05 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
78
MAYOR SMITH: Well, okay, Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Which includes the city,
~ Mayor.
MAYOR SMITH: So, the same people are going to be
paying for it, and the county people are going to be paying
for it, and so maybe that's -- I don't see any difference
between setting up a -- a district, because the county --
non-users are going to be paying for the -- for the district.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see a huge difference. The
difference that I see is that it's a separate -- it's a
separate fund, essentially, that's funded out of a separate
entity. One of the problems the County has, and I guess the
City has it as well, every two years we get a new group of
unfunded mandates from the State, and we have to balance that
and our other needs against a -- now a tax freeze as well.
And you have to start looking at -- I mean, if you look at our
budgets for recent years, we don't have much discretionary
spendinq. We pretty much -- our money goes into roads, law
enforcement, and then the County's -- and the whole legal
system and indigent system, which we have to fund. Those are
all mandated by law that we have to do that. It is harder and
harder for us year to year. We would love to go out and add
I
on to the Ag Barn. We would love to improve Flat Rock Park.
We would love to do Lions Park and our other parks around the
county. The reason you don't see those things done is because
B-5-06 1cc
1
"` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
"'~ 2 4
25
79
the State has just tied our hands with -- with mandates. So,
taxes now on the majority of our population. Even if we do
have a tax increase, it's only going to hit a certain small
segment of the population, so we're in a situation in the
county that it's very difficult to fund things that are
discretionary, which the library is. Putting in a taxing
district, all of a sudden it's in a separate fund, to me.
It's -- then all -- sure, everyone's payinq for it, but that
money's going in for a certain purpose, and I think it's a lot
fairer and a better way to do it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Benham indicated to me that he
had some information available to him regarding the legal
setup of the library relative to the real estate.
MR. BENHAM: To the property, yes. The question was
asked earlier about what would happen to that property if the
library -- current setup ceased to exist. I can't speak
regarding the main building, because that was all done before
I moved here. But I was involved -- Friends of the Library
were deeply involved, I should say, in raising the money for
the other two buildings, the history center and the building
that's currently being used by the City of Kerrville on a
temporary basis for some of the city offices. That money,
which came largely -- not entirely, but largely from
foundations, those foundations said, "We are providing this
8-9-On jcc
1
"` 2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
]3
14
75
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
'°~ 2 4
80
with the understanding that we get the money back if they ever
cease to be used for library purposes." The Peterson
Foundation, the Cailloux's, the Butt Foundation, and I believe
next door where the travel agency and the Cypress Grill used
to be, and 350 of the 360 came from foundations which said,
"We get that money back if you don't use it for the purposes
we're donating it for." So, the -- what I'm saying is, you'd
have to write some awfully big checks if you -- if you cease
to use those buildings for library purposes. Now, those
documents, as I recall them, did not specify who had to own
the library. It said used for library purposes, so I suppose
it's conceivable they could be transferred -- this is a
question for the attorneys over there. I assume it's
conceivable it could be -- that real estate could be
transferred to a new entity, another entity such as a library
district, But if you stop using those buildings for libraries
at a11, you're going to have to write some awfully big checks
to those foundations.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've not heard any suggestion that
any of those properties be used for any other purpose, and I
think title to all three stand in the name of the City of
25 ~ Kerrville, if I'm not mistaken.
8-9-05 1cc
81
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
MAYOR SMITH: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: So -- and in one instance, there --
there would not be a need for -- to make any change in the
title ownership of the property. And as far as that goes, if
a library district were created, I suppose there could be some
sort of a lease arrangement with -- with utilization by a
library district, if that were the case.
MR. BENHAM: Well, believe me, Judge, I wasn't
suggesting -- or wasn't trying to put words in your mouth that
you wanted to use those buildings for anything other than the
library. I'm just saying that if that question -- if that
question ever came up -- for instance, it's been suggested by
some of the consultants that fund -- the Friends -- whose work
the Friends have funded, we might consider going to a whole
new location for a library, and -- and stay -- put up a
state-of-the-art facility, rather than to try to upgrade what
we have now. And I brought it up because of that, among other
things. Simply that those properties do have to continue to
be used for library purposes, or the -- as I say, you'd have
to write some awfully big checks.
JUDGE TINLEY: Either that or get -- get consent of
the current management of those entities if that property were
going to be disposed of and the proceeds used to fund a new
complex, I could see where that might be appropriate and
acceptable to those -- those foundations and so forth. But
8-9-06 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
82
you would necessarily need to get their consent, obviously.
MR. BENHAM: Could I address the question of
computers replacing books, since that was also raised? Would
you allow me that?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I'm certainly not going to deny
you that.
MR. BENHAM: Well you're -- one thing, I think, that
-- this question keeps coming up, and it's a valid one.
The -- one thing that needs to be considered in this, however,
is I -- Commissioner Nicholson and I were talking about this
earlier. I use in my work the Internet about a third of the
time, my own library -- I have the good fortune to have a
library of about 3,000 volumes, and the public library rougi~ly
equal amounts, but what I'm finding is there are more and more
entities that are charging for access via the Internet. I
don't read the political copy in the New York Times, but I do
look up things involving such things as -- as business and
financial stuff, and I read the wine column assiduously. But,
more and more, when I try to find something in the New York
Times, try to download some something from the New York Times,
they say that's a service -- that's a feature that you have to
pay for. And it's not just the New York Times. So, it's not
as if the -- the Internet is free once you get on it. There's
less and less of the Internet that is free. And the idea that
we can replace books with computers down the road someplace,
8-9 06 icc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
83
as -- as one of the other people around the table suggested,
I that can -- that's possible, but it's not going to be free.
II It's going to cost money. Thank you for your -- letting me
say something.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If I can just add a comment to
that.
MR. BENHAM: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I hope no one does -- I mean, I
hope books will never be replaced. I mean, my comments were
solely related to research-type documents rather than books.
Those, I think the Internet are great for. I would hate to
see our society if we no longer have books that we can take on
an airplane and read, at least my -- I can't read computer
screens enough to be able to read a novel or anything. So,
I -- hopefully we'll never lose books, but I think that the
use of the library from a research standpoint will change and
is changing.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Just what Mr. Benham's
saying, this just proves again that what's needed is a
discussion about the future of libraries that brings about a
shared vision. And if nobody else wants to do that, I'll sit
down with you and we'll hammer it out.
MR. BENHAM: Well, the Friends are certainly at your
service.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Okay.
B 9 06 jcc
1
."'. 2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
°"' 2 4
84
JUDGE TINLEY: Relative to the aspect of cost being
to use them, you're now going to get them for free. They're
probably the major one still.
MR. BENHAM: They're the largest, yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's what I thought.
MR. COLEMAN: What is the approval process for
creating a library district? Is it voter-approved?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Yeah, it takes a certain
number on a -- and I'm going to jump in here with the legal
folks. I don't want to do a generalization. A -- a certain
percentage of -- of qualified voters within the jurisdiction
file a petition asking for a -- for a vote to be called on the
creation of the library district, and then it proceeds from
there, just like it does with an emergency services district,
something of that nature. And it's -- it's by referendum vote
of the qualified voters in whatever the jurisdiction it's
intended to be. There are limitations placed upon the -- the
taxing capability of the district, and the -- as long as the
25 I board adopts a tax rate following the proper procedure just
A-9-06 jcc
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
like each of us follows essentially each year, they can set
that tax rate at whatever rate they need, subject to the cap
that's imposed by law, and pay for their own operations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What -- I forgot what I was
going to ask.
MR. COLEMAN: Have --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, I know. What's the budget
-- the estimated or requested amount for the library for this
year -- or for next year?
MR. HOFMANN: The suggested participation amount
from the County was 443,000 and some change. That is based
upon a -- a projected base budget for the library for Fiscal
'06-'07. Again, in accordance with the old agreement, that
would not include any cost for capital. And it -- as you
know, the City Council right now is considering some salary
increases for city staff next year. That number doesn't
include any of that. It's just base budget, $443,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one of the -- and you
said --
MR. HOFMANN: And that's 50 percent of that base
operations costs, without the capital and without the
operating. Going back to -- I mean, without the salary
increases. So, to your original point, Mr. Letz, about the
50/50 split, that was established in the '60's.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. The -- another reason to
8-9-06 jr_c
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
86
or county ]ibrary, is that salary issue that you -- that's a
good point to bring it up, is that it's real difficult for us
if, one year, we decide to give a COLA of 4.2 percent, which
it looks like we may be landing somewhere near that, and say
what y'all's COLA is going to be. All of a sudden, you get
disparity between -- both are funding an operation, but
they're getting different pay raises, and I think that's --
you know, we hear it a lot more in relation to some other
things, like the Appraisal District, where we don't -- neither
of us have as much control. There were many years where we
have given our employees a cost-of-living of 2.8 or
3.2 percent, and they give a cost-of-living of 6 percent, and
it really bothers me and also our employees that, you know,
we're funding that budget. So, I think it -- this is -- I'm
just bringing this up as an opportunity. It's a real problem.
I think it does help when we -- when some of these entities do
have one entity running it as opposed to the other, or moving
it into a third entity, such as a library district. The 943,
though, you said is exclusive of a COLA? What's the City
looking at for a COLA?
MR. HOFMANN: Well, it's not -- on average, it's
going to be between 4 and 5 percent. There is no
across-the-board same percentage. It was based upon a salary
A-9-06 jcc
87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
study we had done a few months ago that looked at several of
our pay ranges, and there are individual recommendations for
individual pay branches.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, y'all aren't doing an
across-the-board COLA this year?
MR. HOFMANN: There would be -- assuming Council
passes this budget, there would be an across-the-board of
2.55 percent in October, and then we would implement the rest
of it in April.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What -- does the 443,667
include that, or is that going to be an add-on?
MR. HOFMANN: Does not.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Does not?
MR. HOFMANN: That was the point I was trying to
make. I mean, it includes money for salaries, obviously, but
any salary increase that is included in the City's budget for
Fiscal '07 is not in that 443, and we're suggesting it not be.
We're suggesting that the County participation be established
on a base budget that does not include the salary increases.
MR. COLEMAN: So that would be foregone for this
entire budget year.
MR. HOFMANN: And it would become part of the base.
MR. COLEMAN: Beginning next year.
MR. HOFMANN: For next year. Which I think is a
fair way to do it.
8-9 06 jcc
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
I6
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, my personal
feeling is -- I have no idea how the other four are looking at
me right now; they're always nervous when I say something,
'cause they don't know what's going to come out of my mouth.
I'd be in favor -- I mean, I'm in favor of funding the 443
this year, with the condition that either we put it out to
voters for an ESD or the City take over full library
operations starting next year.
MR. GROSS: How about with the condition that we ask
the Friends of the Library or the Library Board to come back
next year with a long-term vision of what a library ought to
be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to figure out
how we're going to fund it before we come back with a plan.
And I think -- I mean, the reason is, we -- they've got it
already. So, that's --
AUDIENCE: We've got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, this -- I don't see this
discussion going away. My preference is -- I mean, I say ESD;
a library district. I think that's the fairest, best way to
run a great library. I think you -- they no longer have to
worry about these discussions and COLA's other things.
They're setting their own budget and they're running the
library, and I think that's the way it should be done, and
every one of the voters have a right to say yes or no on that.
9-9-Oti 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
89
Hopefully, they'll say yes. If not, I think the -- you know,
the City or the County should take over operations so we don't
have this going back and forth every year. And the logical
thing, in my opinion, would be for the City to take it, 'cause
it's primarily used by the city residents.
MR. HOFMANN: It's owned by the City.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it's owned by the City.
MR. HOFMANN: It is a City operation; they are City
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, if the City says, "No, we
want the County to do it," we can certainly look at running a
county library, but that's a whole -- whole lot more work to
get there than going the other direction. And if that is the
-- the avenue, I think, from the County, should we -- I don't
think it's one year, just turn it over. I think you need to
-- I think you turn it over, then you reduce payments to a
point down to zero over a period of time, you know. I'm -- I
don't think it's a fair thing just to turn it over one year
and say, "Okay, here, it's your baby now." But you can reduce
it by, you know, 20 percent a year, something like that, over
five years until you get down to -- looks like a City
department.
	COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS:	I agree with	Commissioner
Nicholson,	that the vision needs	-- the vision	needs to be
developed, what we think that should be going forward, and I
8-9-U6 jcc
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
90
do support that as well. I think that, too, is part of --
part of the discussion that you would have with the voters in
support of a library district. "This is what we have. These
are the problems. This is where we want to go, and the best
way to get there, the best funding vehicle that we can think
of to get there is a library district." And that is how we go
about doing it. I think you paint that entire picture and put
it to the voters.
MR. MEEK: How would you initiate that process? I
know it's a referendum process, but, I mean, how do these two
bodies explore or get that started to find out if the voters
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you do it by
develop the strategy and the plan, and the willingness and the
desire to put it to the voters. We both do that and set a
time frame for having everything ready to go, and we begin the
publicity and set the date for the election.
MAYOR SMITH: I was at a TNL conference when they
understand what they said, if you set up a district, you will
have a board of elected officials that -- that run -- or they
administer the money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
MAYOR SMITH: Then you will have the administrators
8-4-06 jcc
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of the library that report to this board of elected people.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
MAYOR SMITH: And so -- so, if you set up a
district, the management of the library will report to these
elected people, and -- and that can get a little -- you know,
it can generate a lot of problems between what these
management people feel how the library should be run versus
how the administrators of the library -- so -- so it's not a
simple thing to set up these taxing districts. And I kind of
-- after I listened to all that, I decided that it probably
wouldn't be appropriate for our situation here to set up a
taxing district. And I'm just gradually remembering all the
things that they said, the pluses and minuses on it, but I
just thought I'd mention that the management --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't see the --
MAYOR SMITH: -- management of the library is not
the board that controls the money.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: A district-wide board would
be selected; you're correct, mayor. And the administration of
the library would be responsible to that district-wide board,
and the district-wide board sets the tax rate and is
responsible to the voters. I don't see the discussion with
respect to operations any more convoluted than the discussion
we're having here today.
MAYOR SMITH: You might be right there.
B-9-06 jcc
92
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
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I have been opposed to the
library district, and I think I may be coming around. I think
it may be the lesser of the evils. It may be the easiest way
to resolve the major problems that we're having with it.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, you get rid of a problem. To
me, I don't know if that's the way we want to handle it.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm not fully convinced,
but let me tell you what my reason is. I don't trust
governments. If we lower our -- or if we shed $950,000 worth
of expenses, these two entities, I don't trust either one of
us to lower our spending by that amount.
MR. COLEMAN: Paul, do you have any thoughts on --
on the possibility of a district?
MR. HOFMANN: I will go back to something that Mr.
Letz said at the beginning of the meeting. I think a lot of
this depends on the answer to the first question, and I -- I
think we need a little time to research it, and that is, what
is our full range of options here relative to that 50/50 deal
that was established 40 years ago? And that needs to be
established to see just what your options are. Then, if you
do have the option of either creating a library district or
having the City be fully responsible for the funding of it,
then, sure, we can explore that. I mean, I'm going to get
back to a point that the mayor made. This is a decision the
City Council needs to make. The decision that the City
8-9-06 jcc
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
93
Council makes is a bit different than the decision that the
And you need to decide -- and a lot of this has to
do with the vision that Mr. Nicholson keeps describing, which
clearly is the missing piece in all of this. But the City
Council needs to decide the extent to which you want to be the
decision-making body here, or are you comfortable with the
idea of a different decision-making body here? That's up to
the City Council. Because, as the mayor pointed out, and I
think this is critical to the decision, creating a library
district isn't about raising the money through taxes. You
already have the ability to raise money for the library
through taxes. I understand Mr. Letz' point, and it's a good
one, about a separate funding stream, but it's also true
today, the library's funded through taxes. Okay. And, yes,
you would need to make sure there's some assurance that
there's a reduction on this side and this side, but it's not
about the taxing. It's about the decision making, I think,
and do you want the City Council to be in the decision making?
Or do you want a separately, newly elected, newly created
board of directors to -- to do that? That's the decision.
Todd made a comment earlier about what we've put in
the capital budget, and Council hasn't appropriated these
S 9 06 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
94
funds yet, but somewhere in that, all of this thinking needs
to come into play. Or, I mean, we need to -- how it's funded,
who the decision makers are, and what you want ultimately out
of a library all needs to kind of come out of that. And the
t this before. They've
Your future facilities,
what you want in those facilities, the kind of programs you
want to provide. Mr. Gross says it's a good library, not a
great library. What's keeping from us making it a great
library, besides this annual debate, is we haven't been
creative enough, largely because of this annual debate, about
the kind of programs we ought to be serving out there. We do,
in my opinion, precious little for the youth in the community.
We do precious little to support the educational element in
this community. And we have a complex out there between the
existing building and the history center and where Denny's
offices are now, and we can do something pretty neat out
there. That's all -- we haven't thought about that so far;
that	could all	be part of that vision.	And all that thinking
needs	to come	together.	
I am more than happy to go out and do some research,
with Antonio's help and the Friends' help and the Library
Board's help, on what it would take to create a library
district. That's not a complicated answer, and Mr. Williams
pretty much has already answered it. But I would remind the
8 9 06 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
95
City Council, before you would go off and do that, a decision
you need to make is, well, who -- who should be the
decision-making body here? If -- and that's the library
district. Now, if it's a municipal library, which is the
other option Mr. Letz described, happy to look at that too. I
think you know this already from your -- from your discussion.
There is no way, immediately, we would be able to recover,
through fees from county residents who are users, that
$443,000. That would take us some time. But part of all this
-- this vision and this plan you're describing, if the County
would be willing -- as I heard you comment on, would be
willing to step down, phase down the contribution so that we
could kind of ease into it over time, if you would like for us
to put together a plan that shows what a -- in looking out
five or ten years, what a municipal -- what a municipal
library would look like, look like physically, look like
financially, I think we ought to do that. Because you -- and
then City Council is still responsible for it. And that's
kind of a value question that you have to wrestle with in
those two options.
MR. COLEMAN: I personally would like to see that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think your assessment -- I
know your assessment's correct. And with respect to the issue
whether it wants to give up the authority that it has with
6-9-06 lcc
96
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
respect to the management --
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the operation, --
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- one of the flaws, as I
recall reading base documents, one of the flaws in the base
documents is precisely that. The management -- the ownership
is vested in the City, and the City and the County then are --
are understood to be equal partners in the operational costs.
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the County then becomes
disenfranchised from the decision making, and that's the flaw.
MR. HOFMANN: Right. It goes back to Mr. Letz'
original question. Not to put words in your mouth, but I
think you said what -- what can we get out of that? Well, we
need to research that. Because you don't -- until you know
the answer to that question, you don't know the extent to
which you can go down those other paths.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
~I MR. COLEMAN: And, Bill, I agree with what you said.
I think that prohibits us being able to move forward year
after year to the maximum benefit for the library. And I
think -- I think if we could look at those two options and
determine which one's the best way to go, we could do that,
and that will benefit the library.
a-9-ob ~~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Definitely.
MR. MEEK: I would say the way this is shaping up,
the best way to maximize the resources for the library would
be a library district. That's pretty obvious, from listening
to this for a couple years, to me. And I think that's the
goal of the supporters of the library, is to have the best
library they can.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And the two pretty things
about it is, the people make that decision. They vote and
make the decision. And then the other thing is seeing the
government entities pull that budget out. I think that's a
work of art.
MR. COLEMAN: And it'll almost be like the school
board. You have people sitting on the school board that are
-- that are directly, critically interested in education. I
think you'd have the same thing occur potentially with the
Library Board.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Way to get us out of it.
MR. BOCK: My next question is to Mr. Hofmann. What
do we need to proceed? Do we need anything in the form of a
resolution, as Mr. Williams has suggested, in order to go
forward with this? Or do you -- and do we need to put this on
an agenda to give --
MR. HOFMANN: I think that depends on how far you
want to go. I think if you want to ask Mike and Rex to
B-9-06 jcc
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
research those original documents, that's -- and see if --
what your options are, that's one thing. If you -- and you
need the answer to that question. And then, if you would like
to ask me to work with the Library Board and the Friends to
library, we are happy to do that. And, no, I don't think you
need a resolution to do that. Now, you'll need a resolution
once you decide what policy direction you want to go in.
MR. BOCK: Sure.
MR. HOFMANN: But when you're pursuing evaluating
options, if it's the consensus of you guys that that's what
you want to do, that's all you have to say.
MAYOR SMITH: And I hate to throw cold water on the
taxing district, but when you set up the taxing district, you
lose the services of the accountants, the lawyers, the
personnel people, the insurance people that are provided by
the City. Now, somebody said, "Well, you can contract with
the City to do that." Well, you're right back in the same
deal. But to set up a -- a taxing district, I think we're too
small to do that. If you -- if you were in San Antonio and
you had 15 libraries or something like that, or if you had
four -- three or four counties, there would be some logic to
it. But the City is still going to have to -- to provide all
these administrative services, or else the -- I don't know how
8-9-06 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
99
much is in this 900-some-odd thousand dollars for
MR. HOFMANN: No, sir.
MAYOR SMITH: So -- so, the 900, whatever it is, is
going to have to be supplemented by the services that will be
provided by some other entity, or else you're going to have to
hire lawyers and all that stuff. So, I'm -- I'm basically --
and I gave it a lot of thought. I thought that would be the
answer, but it's -- it's not all that simple an answer.
MR. COLEMAN: Mayor, I think you may very well be
right. I think that would be one reason to do the plan for
both options, just -- just to be able to determine that one
way or the other --
MAYOR SMITH: Between the two, setting up the taxing
district or the City taking over, I'd prefer that the City
take it over, and -- and -- because the City's going to have
to still do a lot of stuff, whether you have the taxing
district or not. People in the library said they might --
going to handle all that themselves, but there's a heck of a
lot of stuff, you know. They're going to have to pay their
own people; they're going to have to provide benefits, they're
going to have to provide all that stuff for just this small
little module of some people. And the overhead on that is
going to be tremendous, I think. So --
B-9 06 jcc
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
100
MR. COLEMAN: That's a good --
MAYOR SMITH: -- that's -- I'll shut up on that.
But I'm opposed to setting up the taxing.
MR. COLEMAN: Paul, your analysis can -- can provide
for all that?
MR. HOFMANN: Absolutely.
MR. MEEK: I would say this. You know, some
interesting points there the mayor made. But the problem I
see is one of money. If the City is operating that library, I
do not see -- I -- I do not see being able to raise enough
fees for -- from people out in the county to pay their fair
share. I believe you will see the city residents greatly
supplementing those outside the city, and that is what the
library district addresses very well. You have one entity
taxing everyone in the county the same amount. That's the
beauty of a library district.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I agree.
MR. BOCK: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm not so sure but what this
administrative cost may be somewhat of a bugaboo that's --
that's more imagined than real.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is that legal talk,
"bugaboo"?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it is. Befuddled is what you
are right now.
8 9 Oh jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
101
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can you spell that?
JUDGE TINLEY: As most of you know, we -- we've had
a recent experience with creating an emergency services
it district in an area out in west Kerr County, and since that
district was created, there has been a significant amount of
i activity. There's been spirited debate. Would that be a good
characterization?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Good.
JUDGE TINLEY: And even to the point of maybe some
conflict. But I don't think there's been a lot of money spent
on lawyers and administrators and the accountants and so
forth. They're managing to work their way through that. So,
I -- I would -- I would hope that a library district, being a
similar single-purpose type district, once it's created and
set up and in place, would -- would be able to keep most of
those costs in-house and keep them down. But as you
mentioned, Carl, that's the beauty of it. You don't have --
you don't have the city residents being taxed by the City, and
then also being taxed by the County, and then this money going
into a pot. You've got one tax being imposed by the library
district that applies across the board from everybody in the
county, and it's a single-purpose situation, and it's
autonomous.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, I hope you're right. But on the
Airport Board, they're fussing about the amount -- you know,
8-9 06 jcc
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the City ~s -- is the operator of the airport for the -- for
the city and the county, and they are arguing about what the
attorney gets and every -- every person out there. Somebody's
arguing about the allocation of those costs, and we haven't
been able to resolve it. Maybe the -- maybe the Library Board
wil] have more intelligence than the Airport Board and will be
able to handle it accurately.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I remind you, mayor, you sit
on that board with us. (Laughter.)
MAYOR SMITH: Well, I know. I listen to it all.
But it's -- I hope you're right, Judge. But there's a heck of
a lot of cost in running a business. And that's what you're
going to set up, a library business. And -- and somebody has
to pay for all this administrative stuff.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's an option, mayor; that's the
only thing I'm saying. When the options are investigated, it
may well tend to indicate that -- that a completely
City-controlled operation is a better choice. Don't know, but
let's take a look.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think at this point, I mean, I
-- I think we've pretty much gone over it, but I think it's --
I mean, what Mr. Hofmann outlined is -- is exactly what needs
to happen. One, we need to look at the documents, see what
needs to happen, and then it's really in the City Council's
lap as to whether they want to pursue an ESD with the County,
fl-9-06 icc
103
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
and -- 'cause I think we clearly like that option, or if y'all
want to take over operations. I mean, that's -- it's really
not a Commissioners Court decision at this point, as long as
we're willing to fund what is asked this year. That's the
only thinq that we really are -- today's issue.
MR. MEEK: So, it's basically like a teenager; you
give them two choices, either one of you which you like,
right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And then they go in another
I direction.
MR. MEEK: I understand that.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, we're definitely not going to
settle this in the next -- in the next two months or whatever
we have. But if the County would come up with their share of
whatever the budget's been submitted, that gives us probably
14 months to -- to analyze the situation and maybe come up
with a -- with a reasonable solution. There's a lot of work
to be done. This work will not be complete by the time the
budgets have to be approved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I've supported 443,000 for this
year.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, see if your compadres will do
it. I think we can -- I think we can live with that, and
resolve it one way or the other in the next 12 months -- or 14
e-~-oe 7co
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
months.
MR, COLEMAN: That is a good point, Paul, what kind
of time frame would you need?
i MR. HOFMANN: Yeah, I think we're good.
MR. COLEMAN: What kind of time frame would you need
I to --
MR. HOFMANN: What I'd like to do, Mr. Coleman, is
have a little time to answer that question more specifically,
but I think it's reasonable to research those options and have
something that you can deal with going into the Fiscal '08
budget, sure.
MR. COLEMAN: That works for everybody?
MR. HOFMANN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We pretty well stomped that
one in the ground. What else we got, gentlemen?
MAYOR SMITH: Airport.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's handled by the Airport Board.
MR. COLEMAN: Just warming us up for airport, right?
MAYOR SMITH: I've already insulted the Airport
I Board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Despite what the mayor's feeling
is, I think the Airport Board's working very well. We're just
having some growing pains.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, I like to argue. I noticed you
like to also.
b-5-06 jcc
105
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got Animal Control still on the
plate, it appears.
MR. MEEK: On the plate? That sounds like road
i kill, Judge. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I provided a copy of our
proposed draft budget on the animal control services to the
City Manager sometime back. And I apo]ogize, I did not bring
that with me. I don't have it in front of me.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't either.
MR. HOFMANN: Judge, could I ask -- and I apologize;
I didn't bring it either. What -- what we had suggested was
that we keep the funding level for the City the same, right at
$126,000, and that the County resume the activity of -- of
dead animal pickup within the city. Where are we on that?
JUDGE TINLEY: My sense of it is no and no.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good place to start, right?
MR. HOFMANN: That's a good place to start.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- let's go to the
dead animal -- the dead pickup issue first.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because I think the reason --
it's not no. It's that Animal Control doesn't do that for the
County either. It's a -- that's a new service for them to do
that, or it's certainly a -- a service that they're not
8-9-06 jcc
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
currently doing. And the problem comes up with whenever you
put a dead animal in the back of a truck, or transport, that
truck has to be disinfected before you can use it for live
animals. It's a health issue. So, they just don't pick L~.p
dead animals. That's not their -- their job. In the county,
our Road and Bridge Department picks up dead animals.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And TexDOT.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And TexDOT picks up dead
animals. So, I mean, it's like -- that is a function that our
Animal Control just doesn't -- I think they did it for a
while, but that's where they got into -- you know, a couple
years ago, they did it. It's just -- it's not a service they
do. It doesn't fit.
MR. MEEK: That begs a question. Can your Road and
Bridge service pick up the dead animals in the city?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: For a price.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I talked to the
administrator about it, and he said he didn't want to do it.
But he -- it could be done, but it would be adding cost to his
operation.
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just adding work. That's why --
that's why we thought last year, at least in my mind, to ask
the police department to do it, 'cause I presume they did that
kind of thing, but maybe they don't. But it's -- that's the
issue. I see Mr. Hofmann --
8-9-06 jcc
107
1
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 weeks ago -- this is purely from a
citizen standpoint. Two weeks ago, the house across the
street from me is being remodeled, and a deer died over in
their yard. And the people remodeling it, they drug that deer
out to the curb, and I thought, "Oh, no." And -- and I wasn't
sure myself what the -- in the city limits, what dead animal
pickup was. I didn't know what the deal was, and so I kind
of -- I called around and found out, well, we don't have it. ~
And sure in the world -- this was, like, on a Sunday, I guess.
II And I should have taken care of it that night, but I didn't do
~t; I waited till the next morning. And Sunday morning coming
home from church, there were buzzards everywhere right in the
middle of the street, and this thing was bloated up, and it
was a horrible deal. And I finally -- I finally addressed it
then, which I should have done the day before, and took care
of it and took it off. But it is a service --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where'd you take it?
MR. COLEMAN: Well, I took it -- no, no. I'm legal.
I'm legal. (Laughter.)
MR. MEEK: Put it out in the county.
DODGE TINLEY: Let me give you a Miranda warning
first before you answer that.
MR. COLEMAN: Actually, what I did, I took it to our
development property where all of the buzzards hang out anyway
on those big transmission poles. And we --
8-9-06 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
108
MR. MEEK: Did you ring the dinner bell?
MR. COLEMAN: They were coming in as I was leaving.
i So --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If you take it out in the
county, dump it on the state highway so that Road and Bridge
doesn't need to pick it up.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, my whole point is, it truly is
an issue for the citizens.
MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Coleman, we do provide the
I service.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, and I think that is what I found
out, that I had to call waste services -- solid waste
services. And, again, this happened on a -- I think it may
have -- it happened on a Saturday morning, I think. And --
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: -- by the time I could have gotten
them out on Monday --
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: -- it was already nasty.
MAYOR SMITH: Let me ask a question. On the state
road, TexDOT picks them up. So, along 173, there's always a
dead deer on there, but we call TexDOT and they come out and
pick it up?
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
A-q-06 jcr
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOFMANN: On the state roads, yes, sir.
MAYOR SMITH: That eliminates a lot --
MR. MEEK: Sort of like a transfer station for dead
animals.
MAYOR SMITH: Right. But that eliminates a lot of
the animal carcasses on the road. It seems like most of theca
are along the state roads.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's -- I think it's still
an issue. Obviously, with the -- I would think that the
City -- I don't know how many they pick up, but that's the
reason Animal Control's not a good match for it with the
county, is that we don't transport dead animals in those
vehicles.
~ MAYOR SMITH: Yeah.
MR. HOFMANN: What is the amount that the County's
looking for the City to fund next fiscal year?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think costs are up about
5 percent or so, would be my estimate. So, five -- probably
somewhere around 5 percent more than last year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Whatever the pro rata part of -- of
the cost was that the City shared in last year, they share
that same pro rata cost this year.
MR. HOFMANN: I apologize, Judge. Was that in that
document you gave us?
JUDGE TINLEY: No. All I submitted to you,
H-9-06 ~cc
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Mr. Hofmann, was -- was the proposed budget that -- that's
~ been recommended to Commissioners Court.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay. Just to make sure there's no --
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall the percentage. We
can go back and -- and figure that up. Do you happen to
recall the share of percentage --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: 60 percent city, 40 percent
i county.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: And this is actual operating costs,
I without --
COMMISSIONER NICHOL50N; Based on activity.
60 percent of the animal control is activity in the city of
Kerrville.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there --
MR. COLEMAN: And that 60 percent is applied to the
total operating cost?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Operating.
MR. COLEMAN: Without capital --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: There's no capital.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But in that operating, there's
none of the benefit -- none of the accounting and payroll,
none of that additional stuff. I mean, it's the salaries and
the benefits for those particular salaries, but there's no
overhead and administrative costs.
8-9-OE jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
111
MR. COLEMAN: Your costs of that operation?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever, like the library.
MR. COLEMAN: Pickup and all that -- or the vehicle.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now, I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: The cost of that department only. It
doesn't include any general administrative costs -- what you
and I would call general administrative costs, other than the
employees out there. There's no management costs, no legal,
no finance, and none of that stuff.
MR. COLEMAN: And, just personally -- and I haven't
seen the schedule at all, but it seems a little high to me.
It's -- 126,000 is 60 percent, so you guys are talking almost
300,000 for that cost? Again, I purely question it just out
of curiosity. I --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just -- one thing on the
budget amount. Did we -- are -- is it projected that we're
going to spend that full amount this year? Aren't we running
under budget a little? Didn't we have less staff than we
thought part of the year?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I can't tell. Depends on
how many sidewalks we have to build.
JUDGE TINLEY: The figure I get is 142,155.
MAYOR SMITH: Don't mention sidewalks, please.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which is 60 percent of the -- of the
recommended budget for the department of 236,925.
8-9-Oo jcc
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
112
MR. HOFMANN: Sorry, Judge. Give me that number
again?
JUDGE TINLEY: The total number is 236,925. 60
percent is 142,155.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: By my calculation.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It's like most government
departments; it's mostly personnel. We have five people out
there, and then the other costs are utilities and fuel and
medicine and dog food, and --
MR. COLEMAN: And what's --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My point -- I don't want to lose
it -- is that I think we were less than fully staffed part of
this year, so it should be -- I think we just need to account
for -- it's running under our general budget. There should be
some reserve the City will get credit for, because I don't
think we're going to use the full budgeted amount. It's
something we need to figure out how we account for that,
'cause I don't think we are -- right now, there should be a
credit.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We'll know soon.
MR. HOFMANN: So --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the budget will be -- if
that's the amount, it will be less than that, I would suspect,
because I think the City should get a credit for us not
9-9-06 jcc
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
113
spending all the money this year.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay. Council, just so you know, what
we -- what we budgeted is 126,000 and some change.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the request is 136?
MR. HOFMANN: 142.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 142, but I suspect it should be
a credit coming back against that.
MAYOR SMITH: What's the logic of the 60/40?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Calls. Keeping a log.
MAYOR SMITH: What's that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: A log of where the calls are,
~ and 60 percent of the calls are in the city.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, you're recognizing that the city
is -- is in the county, and that it seems like they're paying
a disproportionate part. The people in the city are paying a
premium.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't go there, mayor.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, you got to stir up a little
something. But --
MR. HOFMANN: So I guess I shouldn't mention that
the amount you're asking the City to pay for animal control is
greater than the amount you're apparently willing to pay for
fire protection?
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, go there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's different.
A-9-06 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
114
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what those numbers would
indicate, Mr. Hofmann.
MR. HOFMANN: All right. Just making sure.
MAYOR SMITH: And I will say one thing. Animal
Control people do a fine job. And, you know, if you have a
problem, they're usually out there just like that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But also, the level of service
in the city is different than in the county. We -- there -- I
mean, under the contract, there's more service rendered to
city residents, or -- than out-of-city residents. So, I mean,
yes, there is some --
MR. HOFMANN: I'm sure most of the demand comes from
the city.
MR. COLEMAN: And generally, the full service is if
you get a call and there's a loose dog or a feral cat or
something like that, y'all will send somebody out to pick them
up, and they'll -- they'll bring them back and they'll house
them, try to find them a home or --
MR. HOFMANN: No, not if it's a feral cat, but a
loose dog, yes.
MR. COLEMAN: Bad example. But a dog, and then
house that dog for a period of time, try to find a new owner.
And absent that, we euthanize the animal, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And there's a big thing that --
unseen benefit for you, too, over to the city, is that when we
6-5-06 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
115
make a mistake and kill a pet cat, you don't have to hear
about it. We do. Which has happened several times.
MAYOR SMITH: Let me ask --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Particularly if you put one
of them down.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what I'm talking about.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: And that would never happen
if everybody obeyed the law and had a tag on their cats.
MR. COLEMAN: That's the other thing, the other part
of this.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If your dog comes in with a
tag on him, he's going to get a free ride home.
MR. COLEMAN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: If he doesn't have a tag on
him, he's going to be there at least 72 hours.
MR. COLEMAN: Where do people go to get their
licenses for their pet or their -- go to Animal Control?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm.
MAYOR SMITH: How about skunks?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Animal Control pick up a
skunk?
MR. COLEMAN: Or porcupines.
MR. HOFMANN: I think so. I think that's what the
contract says.
MAYOR SMITH: We were playing golf yesterday
8 9 06 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
116
morning; a skunk goes roaming across there about 25 feet from
us.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll put traps out for them.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hear there was one in your
garage.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah.
MR. COLEMAN: Paul, relative to our dead animal
control, our Solid Waste division, if we call them, they come
out.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
MR. COLEMAN: As part of their contract.
MR. HOFMANN: We come out inside the city, and David
manages that for us.
MR. COLEMAN: Okay. And it's just that we're having
to continue to sustain that incremental part of this total
service, basically.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
MR. BOCK: I'd like to comment. I had a citizen
call, and it pertains to the feral cat pickup. And,
understandably, that they don't pick them up, and if a citizen
in the city has a cat that needs to be trapped, they have the
cages available at the Animal Control Center. She had no way
of getting a cage and transporting a cage, and once the cat
was in the cage, had no way of transporting that cat to the
Animal Control. Is there some mechanism in there that a
8-9-06 jcc
117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
citizen can have Animal Control bring that cage to them, and
then -- or if they can't bring the cage to them, can they pick
it up once the animal is in the cage?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I'm afraid to answer that
question, 'cause I'm not sure I know the answer. I thought we
delivered the cages -- loaned them, but maybe you have to pick
them up. I don't know.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Not in all cases.
Basically, we say we have them available. I've had a
situation with skunks around, people calling. They basically
say, "If we have traps available." If they're available,
'cause they -- they go out quickly.
MR. BOCK: Right, they're out a lot.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And if they're available,
then we ask you to come pick it up, sign out for the trap,
right. And then, once you --
MR. MEEK: But I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bring it back in, animal and
all, or call us and we'll bring it back in, whatever. But we
have to have some kind of ability to trap. We're going to buy
some more this year, I believe, aren't we?
MR. BOCK: And I think the concern was, once the cat
-- or the animals were in the cage, they had -- they had no
way of transporting it at that time, and in their vehicle,
once the animal was in there, and getting it -- does the
9-9-Oti jcc
lla
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
service come out and pick that animal up once it's in the
cage?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably so, yeah.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think I heard that same
complaint you did. I don't know what we're --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if they don't, they need
to. I mean, I don't -- I think the people could pick up the
trap. Transporting the animal back is a little bit scary. I
don't know -- that's something that needs to -- probably
should be.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One thing about Animal
Control, is people get more emotional about pets than they do
about libraries, so complaints are something --
MAYOR SMITH: I don't know about that.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Complaints are something
you have to deal with every day. Some of them are legitimate.
Most of them are not.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, Jonathan, relative to -- and I
didn't understand the portion of the budget where we have
credit coming relative to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just -- my -- without having
the Auditor in here, I don't have our budget for the year. I
suspect that we're going to be a little bit under budget --
under the budgeted amount in this year's expenditures. The
City's paying based on an estimated amount of 126,000. I
8-5-06 jcc
119
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
don't think our -- I think our budget's going to be less than
that, so I think the City should get a credit off of next
year's amount, of the amount that was not spent this year. I
think that should be carried forward. I don't know if the
agreement allows for that, but it should --
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: It should.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- be done that way.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Inequity.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It's not a lot,
Commissioner. What I'm looking at, I'm looking at projected
year-end is only about $6,000 under the budgeted amount. So,
whatever.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I was thinking we were
understaffed out there for a couple months. Maybe not.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: We were. We had some other
experiences that were larger than we -- sir?
MR. COLEMAN: I was going to ask how many employees,
just out of curiosity.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Five.
MR. COLEMAN: Five?
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Mm-hmm. They're -- it's a
24/7 job. They're -- somebody's on call all the time, and
going out on weekends and nights is not -- not at all
uncommon. It's routine.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- a department that we
8-9-06 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
120
made some changes several years ago in, and it is running much
smoother than -- you know, than it used to. It's running -- I
mean, we used to get quite a few complaints, and now we adopt
out most of the animals. You know, Bexar County's going
towards that no-kill facility, and I would suspect, if you
look at how that is defined, we're already a no-kill facility,
or very, very close.
MR. COLEMAN: This is kind of off the wall. What if
we transferred an old vehicle, a pickup that we were going to
take out of service, to you guys to use, be dedicated solely
for dead animal pickup? Is that something that might could be
worked into the program?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. There's some sort of a
credit -- a value of it, adjustment.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, and I would -- to add that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we need it. I mean, I don't
know if we need it.
MR. COLEMAN: I mean, to be able to add that service
back to our contract, dead animal pickup.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: One that wouldn't have to
be decontaminated.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Depends -- I mean, I'm not sure.
I don't think we'd want to get something with 280,000 miles on
it, but if it's got, like 110 -- it depends.
MR. COLEMAN: Serviceable. I think what I heard
e-e-o6 ~co
121

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
earlier is that that is one of the issues; you have one or two
vehicles that you have to use for live animals, and if you had
a pickup that was dedicated to strictly dead animal pickup,
maybe --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see what you're saying.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: Z think Road and Bridge
might possibly be more interested in that than Animal Control
would be, working out a deal with that sort of thing.
MAYOR SMITH: What happens to the carcass? Is it
going out to the landfill?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Landfill.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON; Cost's gone down a little
bit there recently. We worked out a deal not to have to pay
those fees that we've been paying all this time. ~
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know. I mean, how many
-- I guess the Street Department could say. How many dead
animal calls are there in the city? I mean, that's something
we just have to look at.
MR. COLEMAN: There he is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: He just happens to be handy?
MR. MCKENZIE: From October 4th of 'OS to 7-1-06, we
had pickup of dead animals, 434, which ranges from a deer,
cat, possum, squirrel, raccoon, dog, skunk, a porcupine,
rabbit, armadillo, emu, buzzards, snake, and a piq. Those are
dead animals within the city limits.
8-9-06 jcc
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
-- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
`"° 2 4
25
MR. HASTINGS: What about the decontamination? How
MR. MCKENZIE: How do we deal with that? We
purchased -- actually purchased two totes from Lowes that are,
like, 60-gallon with a lid, and actual]y we'll put the dead
animal in there. Of course, if it's a deer, we'll break the
legs in and seal it. And then we just decontaminate the
actual container, as opposed to the whole vehicle. And we
have two of those containers. And those were only, I think,
$24 each, something like that. And then we have a -- we've
got with the Health Department; we have a little sprayer
that's used for vegetation. Instead of that, we put Clorox in
there, two or three capfuls with water. Then we have another
one with soap, and we'll spray the area where we're at. Of
~ course, we have lime. And also, what that container has
allowed us to do is, when we go to a residence that actually
it's on their property soil, we actually pick up the soil with
the animal that has maggots and other things, and pick up a
little extra and take that extra soil, so it reduces the odor
a lot better for the residents. So, we've gotten that
compliment a lot, that the odor doesn't linger on.
COMMISSIONER NICHOLSON: I think maybe what we
should do is to get you together with Len Odom, our Road and
Bridge Administrator, and see if there's any interest in -- in
accommodating the City at some price.
a a u6 ~~~
123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we kicked the dead animals
around enough? Okay. What else?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, the only
issue, I think, left on that is, do you want us -- do you want
the County to pursue having the Road and Bridge Department
looking at picking up dead animals?
MR. HOFMANN: I'll look to my Council for direction
there. You're offering that as an additional cost that we
didn't budget for.
MR. BOCK: I would like to get that cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right. Are we done? If
not, I have one item left, which is a -- sort of a joint
venture type thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bring it on. ~
MR. MEEK: I have another one after yours.
MR. GROSS: I have one, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Water. I'm going to
switch to wearing my Region J chair hat for a moment and
announce one thing. On September 30th, there will be a public
hearing -- or public meeting, I should say, in Kerrville
relating to the scope of work development for the next
two-year plan. And everyone's, of course, invited to that.
The second part is that prior to that meeting -- and I'll
probably try to get something out by Monday at the latest --
there will be an invitation to -- for lack of another word,
8-9-06 jcc
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
just a Kerr County scope of work-slash-water forum, of which
we'll be inviting representatives from the city that serve on
the Region J and others. I mean, if others come, I don't
know. Maybe it could be -- I don't -- the intent is not to
have it be a full City Council meeting, but certainly others
are welcome to listen. Also, myself from the county and
Region J, all of the other representatives from Kerr County on
Region J; I think it's five or six others, and then also
U.G.R.A., Headwaters, some of those. Basically, all of the
players with water, it fits into. Kerr County needs to, one,
work on the scope of work, what we want done by the county for
Region J, which is funded by the state, and also it's a good
opportunity to bring up kind of where we're going as -- you
know, outside of Region J as well. As an example of an item
that we're -- the County is currently working with U.G.R.A. on
a little bit -- I've mentioned this to Carl since he's the
water liaison. The County has, through a memorandum of
understanding, a certain amount of water -- 8,000 acre feet,
Bill?
COMMISSIONER wILLIAMS: 6,000.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 6,000 acre feet M.O.U. with
G.B.R.A. that we were able to negotiate several years back.
It's kind of sitting out there, and I think, you know,
U.G.R.A.'s interested in looking at trying to figure out a way
to firm up some of that. And the offer's also out to the
8-9-Oh jcc
125
1
Z
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
City. The County does not hope to get into the water
purveying business, but certainly, with that amount of water
or acre feet of water out there, we need to try to get that
Monday with a date, talk to a few people, and kind of have a
water forum. I think the timing is good. We get more
interest in droughts, and we're certainly in a drought in my
part of the county right now. And -- but also, it's very
important for both the -- I think for all entities in the
county with the scope of work being developed right now for
the next two-year cycle. That's all I have.
MR. MEEK: All right. I had an issue that I wanted
to make sure the County is aware of. Back when the City did a
comprehensive plan, part of the thoroughfare plan included a
high bridge that would impact County-owned property.
Basically, it would either go right through the State Arts and
Crafts Fair pavilion, or right next to it, from 27, a high
bridge across the lake over to Bandera Highway. Preliminary
estimates, $10 million to construct this, and it's only
four-tenths of a mile from an existing high water bridge at
the state park -- well, now the Kerrville-Schreiner Park. And
it's something I'd like to see removed from our thoroughfare
plan, and I would just like to hear from the County. I would
8-9-OE jcc
126
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
be surprised if the County Commissioners wanted an arterial
road goinq through their property that close to another high
bridge. Just love to hear some feedback. It may assist us to
eliminate that from our thoroughfare plan,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me speak first, 'cause I was
chair of that subcommittee on the comprehensive plan. The
intent of that was that the -- not that location. My
recollection was it was further out, near Brinks Crossing.
The idea was that there was -- it was felt that at some point
way down in the future, it is likely goinq to be needed to
connect the interstate all the way down through 27, outside of
534.
MR. MEEK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The secondary road needs -- some
kind of a thoroughfare needs to go through there. To do that,
you kind of need to use Spur 100, because -- just trying to
use existing right-of-ways as much as possible. And the idea
was that you come out there and probably kick out, was my
recollection -- kick out further towards Brinks Crossing, tie
in through River Road back over to 173, and possibly then tie
into lower Turtle Creek Road. So that's where that came in, I
think, after meeting after meeting going over these maps, and
I think the -- it's more the intent of a thoroughfare out in
that direction as opposed to that location. I have no problem
saying that that's not a good location, 'cause I don't think
8 9-06 jcc
127
1
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 is, but I think that it's really -- the thoroughfare plan,
long-term needing something out in that direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm glad you referenced it,
Councilman, but I think I agree with you that that is probably
something that should be removed. There's going to be a
presentation at Commissioners Court on Monday by Martin
Marietta. I put it on the agenda; they're going to do a Power
Point presentation with respect to their plan for additional
mining, okay? Now, the piece of property that they're going
to talk to us about is right across from the airport, and at
the tail end of that discussion, I'm going to point out for
the Commissioners Court, using their Power Points, how -- if
we look ahead to the future, how we could do another crossing
and tie together Highway 27 to Highway 173, and have it --
have it put into Airport Loop Road. Now -- and the reason I'm
using Martin Marietta's presentation on Monday is because
they're going to have the graphics up there. But we need to
~ be thinking ahead. With the growth of the city and the growth
of the county going both south and east, we need to be
thinking about how people get where they need to go. And with
the -- with our hope for long-term progress with the airport
and the growth of the airport, that, too, lends itself into
this equation. So, I'm going to have an opportunity to show
Commissioners where it might be beneficial for us to be
8-9-06 jcc
128
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
thinking ahead for another crossing, and that crossing would
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's scheduled for 9:15.
I'm just tying onto their presentation. What they're going to
talk with the County about is increased mining operations.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Based on that location, which is
clearly in the ET J, does the City have -- the City may want to
-- I mean, the County doesn't -- we don't have a whole lot of
authority when it comes to this. The City may want to -- I
don't know if you have any authority in that area or not, but
if you do, y'all may want to attend it.
MAYOR SMITH: We have a budget meeting that morning.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, we do.
MAYOR SMITH: So we will not be able to attend.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You're not going to learn a
great deal more there than what I just told you, because we're
just going to be talking to the Court and taking it out to the
public. But I had the opportunity, with Leonard Odom of our
Road and Bridge, to meet with Mike Coward just to lay out the
basic idea, and the State is always interested in ways to tie
its major thoroughfares, and this is one way of -- and it is
far enough removed from the other crossing, which is Loop 534,
fi-S-OG jcc
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
129
so as not to give them a lot of concern about having crossings
too close together.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's about where the intent
was to put the crossing.
MR, COLEMAN: Would they be interested in doing a
traffic flow study?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We've done a traffic flow
study, which I have. Road and Bridge did it of C.P. River
Road and Wharton Road, and basically from Sutherland to
Highway 173 up C.P. River Road as it meanders through there.
And one of the things that's really important in this whole
equation ~s the increased volume of traffic, both truck
traffic and vehicle -- and automobile traffic. Truck traffic
out there is eating up that county road; I can tell you that
right now, because of the nature of the vehicles that are
coming out of -- all that material out of all those pits and
so forth, absolutely tearing up that road. But the long-term
growth of the city and the county going in that direction, and
hope -- and hopefully, when we -- if and when we get a sewer
system in Center Point and that blossoms, we do need to think
about another crossing, and that's not a bad place to think
about it.
MR. MEEK: Sounds good. Did any of the other
Commissioners want to weigh in on the idea of an arterial
going through the pavilion on your property? Is anyone in
fl-9-Or jcc
130
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
favor of that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather not do that.
MR. MEEK: Pardon?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I would rather not do it.
MR. MEEK: Or right next to it.
MAYOR SMITH: Rather impractical, that's for sure.
DODGE TINLEY: Highly impractical. That just
doesn't make sense if you've got the high bridge there at 534,
just, you know, less than a mile away.
MR. MEEK: That should help us remove it from the
thoroughfare plan. Thank you, gentlemen.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Gross, you had something you
wanted to --
MR. GROSS: Yes. Just for the terminally slow,
which would be me, exactly where did we leave the fire
agreement?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I left it at 125.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah, we left it -- I left it
~ at 125.
MR. GROSS: Is that where we want to leave it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Mr. Hofmann was going to
look at it and come back with a different number, possibly.
But, I mean, it --
MR. HOFMANN: To look at your suggestion about cost
associated with the volunteer departments in the county. When
8-9-06 jcc
131
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
~- 13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
you -- when you asked that, were you thinking in terms of the
Fiscal '07 budget?
I COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know, to be honest. It
depends on -- it gets into a very complicated issue to look at
that this quick, because I think -- I mean, I don't even know
how you tackle that task. First, I think you have to -- I
mean, I don't know how you do it. So, it depends -- that's
more a question as to -- I don't know. My gut feeling is that
if we want to look at the fire protection county-wide, that
can't be done -- and really where we're going and what's a
formula to make that work, that can't be done in -- in a
month. So -- but maybe it can. And I guess -- I mean, my
recommendation -- I mean, you know, I'm not the one doing the
work, but my recommendation would be to leave it as it is this
year. Let's have some time to really look at it, how -- you
know, what our philosophies are on fire protection
county-wide. Because I think the -- the City's way of looking
at it is far different than mine, and far different than the
volunteer fire departments are -- are giving us the feedback.
I see that the City may want to provide -- look at
it as if they're providing backup services, and it's their --
or not backup: they're providing service throughout the whole
county, but the volunteer fire departments really don't look
at it that way. They look at it like when they're needed,
25 I they're right there, and they're very happy to do that, or
8 5-06 jcc
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
132
they're glad if the city is able to respond. But for the most
part, I think that if it's -- if that's a huge dollar figure
and if we give the volunteer fire departments a choice, "Okay,
excluding disaster time, would you rather have us fund the
city for backup or give you more money for backup?" They're
going to say, "Give us more money." In which case, I --
that's directionally what I'm hearing, is that our fire
departments in the county don't want the City to be the
backup, except in emergency situations. And I think that's
covered.
MR. MEEK: Quick question about -- what about the
I have a pretty good pulse on the citizens in their area, has
been my feeling. But, no, I have not asked the citizens, but
the volunteer fire departments are made up of volunteers, so
it's a pretty good representation. And they know, you know,
how the funding mechanism works for their department. Now,
that goes back to the issue of Kerrville South. And, in any
case, Kerrville South, in all actuality, is also Kerrville
North. That's a different issue that we have wrestled with
quite a bit with the Commissioners Court as to what is the
best way to provide fire service to those areas. Because I
think I share Commissioner Baldwin's feeling that the
agreement makes us feel real good, but is it really a huge
8-9-06 jcc
133
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
help? Because of the -- trying to use a city truck to fight a
rural fire. I mean, you've got a very limited amount of water
there, until we get backups in from primarily either our Road
and Bridge Department or the volunteer fire departments. So,
I think there's a -- you know, clearly, the City responds and
fulfills the operation of the contract, but for $125,000, or
now going up to possibly $350,000, is that money better spent
on the county jump-starting a volunteer fire department in
Kerrville South and only relying on the city of Kerrville for
disaster-type assistance? And through a mutual aid agreement.
So, that's kind of -- does that answer your question? I think
it's more than one -- I personally think it's more than a
I
four-week project, but we can try to do it that quick.
MR. GROSS: Can we do it?
MR. HOFMANN: Certainly try.
MR. GROSS: I think we should. I'm done.
JUDGE TINLEY: What else we got to throw out here on
the table? The last agenda item --
MR. COLEMAN: Airport was on our list as well, but
that's pretty well taken care of through our Airport Board.
JUDGE TINLEY: Airport Board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: On that, I can say the
Commissioners Court so far has agreed -- I mean, is going
along with the recommendation of the Airport Board. Whatever
8-9-U6 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
134
that number is is what's in the budget.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's plugged in. The last item is
to schedule a date for a joint meeting of the Commissioners
Court and the City Council.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's the toughest one of
all.
JUDGE TINLEY: May be. Could be. What are we
looking at in a time frame down the road? Number one, what --
are we going to try and look at this issue on -- on volunteer
fire department support capacity? If so, that's going to
dictate when we need to have this thing. We got two or three
other issues that are hanging out here that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, so we don't miss
something, how about if you get with Mr. Hofmann and develop a
schedule? 'Cause it seems to me that there's certain --
several timelines need to be built on a number of these
things. Just one thing that can reasonably be done in, I
think, a little bit of time, just to -- you know, library,
that's one; that's going to be one timeline. Fire is going to
be another one; possibly, you know, a long time line, possibly
a very short timeline. But y'all get together and kind of
come up with a schedule so that we don't miss something,
trying to go back through our notes.
JUDGE TINLEY: That might be a good idea. I don't
think, until we know what -- what's going to be on the next
B-9-06 jcc
135
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
plate, that we can determine when we ought to do it, because
there's -- some of those things are going to take a while. Is
that acceptable to you, Mr. Hofmann?
MR. HOFMANN: Oh, absolutely.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay, Well, we'll do that.
Anything else from any member of the Commissioners Court that
we need to thrash around today on? If not, Commissioners
Court will be adjourned.
MAYOR SMITH: City Council will be adjourned also.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good meeting.
(Joint meeting was adjourned at 12:18 p.m.)
STATE OF TEXAS I
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 16th day of
August, 2006.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: __ _ __ ~~ _____ ___ _
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
B-9 Oo jrc