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
KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
and
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Joint Workshop
Monday, March 5, 2007
8:00 a.m.
KPUB Meeting Room
2250 Memorial Boulevard
Kerrville, Texas
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 1'1
V
Kerr County Commissioners Court: C-
PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge ~Q
H A."BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 Q
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
2
I N D E X
March 5, 2007
PAGE
1.1 Presentation and discussion with City Council
and City staff with respect to operation and
funding of joint City and County projects,
including, but not limited to:
Library funding issues 3
Animal Control contract 33
Fire/EMS funding 51
Status of efforts of Economic Development
Study Committee g6
Joint City/County Airport Board 90
Joint and/or cooperative efforts of law
enforcement in dealing with and handling
mental health cases 114
--- Adjourned 133
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
3
On Monday, March 5, 2007, at 8:00 a.m., a joint workshop
of the Kerrville City Council and the Kerr County
Commissioners Court was held in the KPUB Meeting Room, 2250
Memorial Boulevard, Kerrville, Texas, and the following
proceedings were had:
P R O C E E D I N G S
MAYOR SMITH: We might as well call to order the
joint meeting of the Kerrville City Council and the Kerr
County Commissioners Court on March 5th, 2007, at 8:17 a.m. in
the Kerrville Public Utility Board Meeting Room.
JUDGE TINLEY: And, Mr. Mayor, I likewise will call
my agenda to order at that same time and place, at the posted
time and date, Monday, March 5th, 2007. The agenda that I
have posted, Mr. Mayor, has kind of a generic discussion.
Your agenda comes down by item, so probably in order to stay
on track, why don't we just follow your order here, and we'll
go from there.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay. The Agenda Item 1 is library
funding issues. I don't know exactly how you -- how we're
going to handle these. Do you -- City Manager, will you want
to -- where's Paul? Do you want to -- did you want to
discuss --
MR. HOFMANN: Mayor, I can give a brief introduction
and overview on where we are on this, and John David Lipscomb,
the chair of the Library Board, is here. He's prepared to
3-5-07jwk
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
4
address the City Council and the County Commissioners as well.
And this -- this subject is a bit of a follow-up to the
discussion we had on this topic six months ago in this room,
the last time we had a -- we had a joint meeting. And not --
remember the conversation. The -- the participants at that
meeting, County Commissioners and Council members, asked that
we evaluate the creation of a -- of a library district, and to
look at funding issues for the library. And it was also
discussed that we should spend some effort looking at the --
the vision for the library itself.
And a bit of -- a little background that the City
Council certainly knows, and -- and the County Commissioners
may not be as fully aware of, is that the City Council
budgeted in this year's capital plan some funds to do a
facility study, programming study for the library, that would
include not only the current building, but the other buildings
across the parking lot out at the library, and do a full
library complex study. And it's -- it was our thought that
before we	embarked on	a study	like that, that we	ought to	wrap
our hands	around what	-- what	is the vision and	the future	for
the library.
Mr. Lipscomb has previously reported to both the
County Commissioners Court and to the City Council his board's
recommendation on the creation of a library district. I'm
3-5-07jwk
5
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sure he is -- he can repeat some of that presentation if you'd
like to hear that, and answer any questions you have about
that, but I think he's probably most prepared to update both
bodies on where his board is on coming up with a vision for
And
Mr. Lipscomb	to --	you should probably	find a place at the
table here.	And -	-	
MAYOR SMITH: Judge, Mr. Lipscomb made a
presentation on the library district, and, as I understand it,
they're not making a recommendation. Do you want him to go
full-length on the -- I think he made a presentation to you.
Do you want him to go full-length on the pros and cons of
forming a district at this time?
JUDGE TINLEY: He made a presentation to the Court a
high points of that. And we've got some written material that
he's provided from his group, so whatever he needs to do in
order to keep it cohesive, and so that there's better
understanding.
MAYOR SMITH: Fire away.
MR. LIPSCOMB: Okay. Well, in your -- I think in
your packets, there's some recommendations, and let me just
give you a little bit of history on that. This is the most
recent item out of the Advisory Board. There were some
3-5-07jwk
1
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
missions and roles for the library formulated, and -- and with
library is -- as far as the future, as far as a vision goes,
the library that you see today is probably going to be a lot
like the library of tomorrow, in that you'll still have books.
information technology, more computers, more digitized books,
that kind much thing, but the basic services of self-help,
learning, and community involvement are still going to be
there in the future of the library.
And so, with those things in mind, the board
provided recommendations -- I think there's eight
recommendations here -- relative to things that -- that we
might like to see in the library of the future. And, as -- as
the City Manager just alluded to, first -- first one has to do
with looking at the whole library complex, the buildings, and
how could those current building facilities be better utilized
for the library functions? And then the second recommendation
has to do with perhaps procuring some kind of a group or an
individual with expertise to -- to look at the buildings
themselves, and could they just be better organized? Could
you rearrange things to improve the efficiency or improve
floor space? Perhaps take in some of the existing buildings
to increase the floor space, but not necessarily increase
the -- the footprint of the building.
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
7
want to spend a lot of money on an old building. Because
that's what it is; it's a 40-year-old building that needs a
lot. So, we didn't think it was prudent to just put a lot of
money into refurbishing an old building. But if you could do
some of these things to -- and in kind of a short term to
improve the library and to make it a better place for the
community, it might be worthwhile. 50, that's -- that was the
reason behind encouraging yet another study. But, again, let
me say this study would be on all of the buildings in the
complex, and not just on the old building, which is what the
previous studies have been.
Then the other recommendations have to do with
creating some -- some quiet areas, some areas strictly for the
teens that would be isolated, some isolated areas for the
children's library, to look at parking. Could anything be
done there without spending a lot of money? And -- and one
example was the creation of perhaps some compact spaces so
that you might be able to get a few more spaces in, or the
total number of cars. And then there was even a suggestion --
a recommendation here dealing with something that really
wouldn't cost much money or take much effort, and that's just
create a web page for the teens off the library's web page,
something that would be of interest to them; books relative to
3 5-09jw4:
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
8
their -- news relative to the teens, that kind of thing. To
just -- I think we all grew up -- I know I did -- with not
much activities -- organized activities for the teens, so I
think if the library could be a -- a focal point for that,
that would be a good thing. So, that's what the
recommendations have to do with. I'd be glad to answer any
questions about that, if anyone has any. Yeah?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not as much on the
recommendations, but just going back to the library
district -- I don't want to get in a big discussion on this; I
know the recommendation. Can you just summarize why the
Advisory Board does not feel the library district is a good
idea?
MR. LIPSCOMB: Sure, be glad to. Let me go back and
do a little bit of history. In 1997, the Texas Legislature
passed, as part of the Local Government Code, a
multi-jurisdiction library district legislation, Chapter 326,
and in Chapter 326, a library district can be created and
administered by elected officials that collect their revenue
off sales tax. And -- excuse me -- in fact, in '98, the first
library district was formed, the west -- West Bank Community
out of Austin, and it still exists today. It's been quite
successful. In fact, there are a total of, I think, today, 15
library districts across the state that have been organized
under Chapter 326. Again, that's funded with sales tax
3-5-07jwk
1
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
revenue. All right. Since this area is at sales tax max,
that's not an option for us.
In 2005, Chapter 336 was approved, and that allows
for a similar type district with appointed members rather than
elected, to collect property tax revenues to the fund. Now,
to this date, there have been no library districts formed
under Chapter 336, and so looking at all of that, the board
felt like it's -- our only option, the 336, was not really a
good choice, for several reasons, and one of them being the
fact that the officials that -- that would run the district
formed under 336 would be appointed. And -- and you look
around, and the two bodies here, City Council and
Commissioners, they're elected people that pull revenue off of
property tax. You have school districts; you have some
emergency service districts out in western Kerr County. Those
are all elected, and this one would be appointed, and we just
wondered about the -- how the people would feel, how the
voters would feel about having appointed members rather than
elected. So, that was one issue.
The other issue was, forming a -- a district is
going to cost really a lot of money, more money than is being
spent right now. And I realize that sounds kind of strange,
but if you think about it, right now, since the City owns the
library building and library staff people are city employees,
a lot of the administrative costs associated with -- with
3-5 07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
10
that would pay for that. So, those were some of the -- the
main reasons.
And -- and since we're talking about cost, I might
point out, too, that right now, of course, a portion of the
city residents' taxes -- property taxes go to support the
library, and a portion of the -- those people who live outside
the city, a portion of their county taxes go to support the
library. So, if -- if a district was formed, the City, of
course, would no longer be putting in that money, so that
portion of money would have to be distributed over everyone
else in the county. And we could see that, basically, the --
of course, I realize city people live in the county too, but
in -- those who live in the county would really see a higher
cost. When I say that, I mean -- I'm talking about the people
So, those folks -- let's recap. I think I've done
badly with this. The people that live outside the city would
pay additional because they would have to pick up that portion
of the city that would no longer be paid. Probably thoroughly
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
11
confused y'all by now. I think those are the main points.
There were some other issues, but there was just a lot of --
of concern about these issues, and one of them being that --
that if -- if the Butt Holdsworth Library was to create a
library district under the property tax legislation, they'd be
the first. And -- and I think I pointed out in a presentation
back in November-October that it's not easy forming a
district. This West Bank Community that was the first one,
they kept all their information and put on it a web page of
what all the -- the hoops they had to jump to get a library
district formed, and it's not an easy task, and there's a lot
of cost and overhead up front before it's even approved.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: John?
MR. LIPSCOMB: Yes?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Are you saying that under
336, the board is appointed?
MR. LIPSCOMB: Yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And that board levies taxes
and collects them, possibly, et cetera?
MR. LIPSCOMB: They have the responsibility to
determine a tax rate which, of course, goes before the voters,
and they approve it or don't approve it, yes.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I can tell you how the
public will feel about that.
3-5-o7jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
12
MR. LIPSCOMB: That was our feeling, too.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is 336 set up as an
appointed board, just as the first board, with the subsequent
board being elected? Or is it --
MR. LIPSCOMB: No, it's an appointed board all the
way through. Under 336 -- excuse me, under 326, they're
elected for two-year terms. And the other thing is, it calls
for a seven-member board, with four from the lead government
entity and three from the other. So, in this case, it would
be four people from the city and three people from the county,
similar to the situation we have right now with the Library
Advisory Board. We have three -- basically three people
representing the county and three people representing the
city, and then one kind of an independent of The Friends.
MR. MEEK: I have a question. Who would appoint the
members? Would it be the Legislature or the local --
MR. LIPSCOMB: The government entities, the City and
the County.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Paul, I'm curious about your
comment that the City has budgeted in your long-term fund,
or --
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: To do -- to do what? For a
study? Or was there other things?
3-5-07jw4:
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOFMANN: No, it -- it would be a study. And
recognizing that there have been previous studies of the
I don't think that study has ever been completed
to come up with some recommendations for how to add space to
it. But, as Mr. Lipscomb said, and as we've had discussions
with the Library Board over the last several months, not to be
overly critical of those previous studies, 'cause there's a
lot of benefit and some good findings in those studies, but
one -- one recurring shortcoming in all those studies was that
they only looked at the existing building. And I think, and I
think it's the opinion of the Library Board as well, that if
we're going to consider the future of the library from both a
physical standpoint and a programming standpoint, that it
makes sense to consider the building that currently houses the
Parks and Recreation facility, for example. And, again, you
can't separate the -- the physical from -- from the
programming.
Again, as Mr. Lipscomb said, and why I think it
makes a lot of sense to step back and think about the future
of the library from a programming needs standpoint, while --
while we have a -- I think a pretty decent children's program
out there right now, I think it's also true to say that when
3-5-O~jwk
1
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
give the City Council the opportunity to -- to study that
question. Now, we budgeted $50,000. I don't think that the
study we're -- we would be describing here would cost $50,000,
necessarily, but that's what we've set aside from -- from
funds previously donated. The money we have budgeted for this
isn't -- isn't coming from the City's general fund. And I
think -- and this is -- this is not up to me, obviously; it's
up to the City Council -- that the Library Board has done an
excellent job here of laying out some recommendations that
could be turned into a scope of work for that kind of
analysis. At least that's the thinking.
MR. GROSS: If I could add to that, I think we need
to step back, way back. There's nothing that would -- that a
little soap and water wouldn't hurt that building, as a little
aside. But if you put lipstick on a pig, it's still a pig.
And our library now is just totally inadequate, and the
facility is in bad shape, and I really think what we need to
do is think a little bit broad -- more broadly. If we fail to
think broadly, we're going to fail the library and people who
use it. I think the first place to begin is with a facility
study for the entire city, and maybe even the county as well.
3 5-07jwk
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
I think we need to start with a clean sheet of paper and say,
"IS this where we want the library?" Maybe it's the wrong
spot. Maybe something else ought to go in that building.
Maybe -- you know, maybe we need to think about it
globally. We talk about comprehensive planning, and then
we -- then we plan little pieces. We have a comprehensive
plan that's not really comprehensive. So, I think we need to
think broadly, and we need to think what a library looks like
in 2020 or 2030, and build to that. And I'm afraid that if we
the current facility, we're just spreading our problem out;
we're not fixing it. I think we need to fix it. And as for
the taxing district, it's still a tax. Somebody -- somebody
somewhere is going to have to pay the freight. And if we say,
"Well, we didn't raise city taxes; we didn't raise county
taxes," but we created a library district, it's still a tax.
So, we have to be really, I think, good stewards of the
taxpayers' money, and not -- not try to hide a tax by giving
it another name.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with a lot of what
Scott's saying on long-term, on thinking out of the box, but I
think there's two components that -- and they can go on
simultaneously, in my mind. I think the community needs to
regardless of if it's city/county, city or county. Shouldn't
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
thing is funding and the current relationship, how, you know,
that is going to continue in the future. And, obviously, it
doesn't work real well. The more I look at the facility, the
have the genealogy center now as part of the complex, which is
city only. You have the Parks and Rec building, which is city
only. Then you have the library, which is a city building the
County helps fund, and it's just really become an unmanageable
item, and really hard to tell exactly what it's even costing,
in my mind.
The -- one of the things that I recall Paul bringing
up at our last meeting was trying to figure out what legal
requirements were placed on the City and the County by the
Butt family -- Holdsworths, I mean, when it was originally put
together. I mean, I don't think anyone had a good answer at
the last meeting as to, can it be split up? Can one entity
take it over? I mean, how is that all done? If the library
moves, does that property revert back to somebody? Can you --
you know, I mean, there's just a whole lot of questions that
kind of go along with that -- what Scott was talking about, as
to what can be done with that facility and what can be done
with the current joint relationship.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, I think we can answer the
3-5-07~wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
question about the legal requirements. And, Mike, jump in if
I leave something important out, but the bottom line is, there
is no ongoing legal obligation on the County to continue
funding participation in the library at any level. There is
no ongoing requirement there.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about the use of that property
for library purposes? Is there any sort of a problem?
MR. HOFMANN: Again, Mike, tell me if I stray here,
but no, there's no -- there were no stipulations on the
long-term use. No legal stipulations, anyway, on the
long-term use of that property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just did some research
into some of the court orders going back in terms of funding,
and I didn't find anything either. I found the original court
order which set up the County's contribution, but there was
nothing behind that court order that indicates it's -- it's
forever. Just a court order that we can do it, and cited that
way. And there was a certain taxing limitation put on it by
the initial Court; it should never go above five cents per --
per $100 valuation. Obviously, it's gone beyond that. But
there is no permanent indication or commitment, from my
research.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it would appear to be
more important, in my -- in my estimation -- and I think the
Advisory Board, if we had more time, we'd talk about it -- to
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
functions of the library from now into the future, rather than
spending it on the old facility that's obsolete. And I -- I
would really hate to see anybody spend an enormous amount of
money on the old facility, knowing that it's obsolete. Money
would be better spent going toward a new facility and a new
place that is accessible. The library is not accessible to
the public. You have no parking. What parking -- what little
parking you have is downhill from the library. A lot of
elderly people use it; it's hard for them to get in and out.
You have children that are using the library; they're being
bused there. They're stopping on the street and dropping them
off on the street. That is a safety issue. You know, I think
we just need to really look long and hard and face the fact
that the thing is obsolete, and look forward into building a
new place somewhere. I believe it can be funded with grants.
It wouldn't necessarily have to all be funded with -- with tax
dollars. And -- but that would be my -- that's my thought on
the thing, from my short time of being on the library this
time, and from years past. This is an ongoing issue; it's not
going to be resolved by throwing $50,000 a year into doing
minor renovations that accomplish nothing. That's my thought.
MR. GROSS: And, by the way, grants would give us
capital funds, but operational funds -- if we incorporated
3-5-07jwk
19
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some of the new technology, like RFID, for example, we could
operate much more efficiently in terms of payroll.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. And, too, when you
have three separate buildings, you have staffing problems that
cost more than they should, in my opinion. Do it all under
MAYOR SMITH: I'm inclined to agree with you. I
don't see how all those three little buildings -- if they
could be connected with a walkway or something like that,
might have some utility, but you couldn't -- it would be --
you know, it would just be good money after bad if we tried to
do much. You could temporarily do something, but long-range,
you need to do something a lot better than just adding three
little structures on. A lot of money would be spent modifying
those to make them useful.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And, too, you're going to have
to -- to incorporate A.D.A. into this if you start doing some
major renovation, and we all know what that costs.
Cost-prohibitive in an old building.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think what y'all have talked
about, I mean, is a study to come up with what is a good plan,
and I think that takes part of the long-range vision in place.
The other part of the -- probably a more difficult thing is
how we operate it and -- and that relationship. I mean, I
think I was pretty explicit at our last meeting of my view of
J-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
20
my view on that. I just think that it is not working well.
It is a situation where, as long as I've been a Commissioner,
it's essentially -- the County has had very little input,
other than being members on the Advisory Board, to the
think that's not correct. And I don't -- and I think my view
is probably going down a -- a route where the County will let
it be a City-run facility, and the County give a contribution.
And it's not tied to anything, other than -- I mean, I think
a -- you know, a level should try to be targeted, so there's
-- from a planning standpoint, but, you know, somewhere in the
neighborhood of what our funding level is now. Probably leave
it at about that, maybe some escalation, and just give a --
$400,000 the County contributes to it, and that's it, or
whatever the number is, and let it be a City-run facility.
MR. HOFMANN: How is that different from the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we argue about 50 percent
MR. HOFMANN: I see.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As opposed to -- we're not a
partner. It's a city library, and for the county residents to
be able to use it, the County provides a -- an amount. And I
think the County needs to be willing to commit over, you know,
3-5-07~wk.
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
increments of time.
MR. HOFMANN: So, a flat number, maybe with a
reasonable adjustment on how to fund the operations. And, if
I might, it -- am I hearing that if we were to do this study,
that the study shouldn't be limited to the complex, as
Mr. Gross said? We ought to start with a blank slate, and as
Mr. Oehler said, we should look at -- at least analyze the
alternative of starting over brand-new, new building. Is that
an overstatement of what is being described here?
MAYOR SMITH: Let me ask Mr. Lipscomb a question.
Now, your first recommendation is studying the three
buildings. That wasn't too -- your committee wasn't too
excited about that, I imagine.
MR. LIPSCOMB: Well, excited with respect to prior
studies had just focused on the main building. And -- and if
you're really looking at all the facilities to get the library
work done, it only made sense to look at all the buildings
that are there, how they could best be utilized. Understand,
we were looking at this for short-term, you know, solutions.
This is --
MAYOR SMITH: Well, that wouldn't be a --
MR. HOFMANN: Short-term.
MAYOR SMITH: -- long-term recommendation.
MR. HOFMANN: Like, ten years.
MR. LIPSCOMB: Or less.
3-5-07jwk
22
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. HOFMANN: Or less.
MR. LIPSCOMB: Yes.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: And that's an important point of what
the Library Board has been thinking through, is their planning
horizon here is 10 years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other comment; then I'll be
quiet. On what I'm talking about, turning it over to the City
totally, it's not just that -- it's -- to me, it is a
city-used facility. It's not -- I mean, most county
residents -- I mean, it's including, obviously -- those in the
city are obviously county residents, but those people outside
the city limits or the ET J, Kerrville central, they don't use
it a lot. I mean, my constituents in the eastern part of the
county don't come over here. I don't know about the west,
but -- occasionally some usage, but it's predominantly a
city-used facility, and that's why I think it should be a city
facility.
MR. GROSS: And part of that is shame on the library
for not having the programming that would attract the folks in
the county. It needs to be worth -- worth it. When people
make a buying decision these days, they evaluate it in terms
of, is it worth it? Is it easier to sit at home and get it
off the Internet, or can I buy a novel at Costco? We need
programming that attracts folks and is relevant and pertinent
s-s-o~~wr.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
23
to the lives of people in county life.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you're right to a point,
but I think the other part of it is, there's a library in
Comfort that's -- that's a private library, and it's funded
similarly by Kendall County, but it's a small-town library; it
gets a lot of community support. I mean, those -- you get
Center Point and Ingram, there's -- they have another
alternative. I don't think it's just that they don't want to
use the library. There's other alternatives out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm done.
MR. COLEMAN: Jonathan, one thing, I don't think
it's boundary-restricted only. I think it's a demographic
thing, to the extent that we have retirees in the city or
retirees in the county subdivisions. I think that retiree
demographic utilizes the library more than other groups.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably true.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Based on my recommendation
of utilization statistics -- and they may have changed; I
haven't talked to Commissioner Oehler about it -- they
pondered uses from people who live within the city limits.
MR. HOFMANN: About 70 percent of users are city
residents.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That supports my
recollection. Other counties and cities face the same. We're
3-5-07jwk
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
not plowing new ground here. One of the solutions that others
have reached is that if it's a City-owned facility, it's
operated that way, and people who live outside the city limits
buy a library card, period.
MR. GROSS: I really have trouble with that. I
don't think that encourages people to use the library. I
think it's a little bit discriminatory for the lower economic
folks. I think we -- I think we owe it to our community to
make the library welcoming -- welcoming to everybody. I get
your point. It's a good point; it's well made and well taken,
but I don't think, philosophically, that's what we would want
to do. I think that the library ought to be like a church.
The door is open; come in.
MR. MEEK: It was also given by the Butts as a free
library, and their legal terminology -- perhaps you could help
us, Antonio, on what that means. You can charge a nominal
fee -- is that right? -- for library cards? But you can't --
MR. MARTINEZ: Well, there are various ways to
structure a library, right. Operating as a free library under
state laws means you can only charge for certain kinds of
things. Parking, for instance. A fee for parking is allowed,
but you cannot charge for -- as we're established, we cannot
charge for people walking in the door.
MR. COLEMAN: Paul, the study that you referred to,
the funding is in place through grants now?
3-5-07jw4:
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOFMANN: Donations.
MR. COLEMAN: Donations.
MR. HOFMANN: But, yes, sir, funding is in place.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, neither the City or County
would have to contribute money?
MR. HOFMANN: It's in the City's budget. It's not
the general fund. No tax dollars would be used.
MR. COLEMAN: And then that study would concentrate
on what John just went over, which is --
MR. HOFMANN: Well, that's the question.
MR. COLEMAN: -- short-term.
MR. HOFMANN: That's the question. And that's
really -- before we proceed on with that study, we need to
achieve some consensus about a scope. And is that scope -- is
the question of that study, what do you do with the library
complex? Or do you add the question, what about starting all
over with a blank slate?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think Bruce's comments on that
were very good. I agree with that myself.
MR. HOFMANN: And so that's the question, is just
how would you scope that analysis, and to what extent are you
willing to look at starting completely over? 'Cause I think
that changes the nature of that study significantly, and it
just -- how open do you want that analysis to be, is the
question.
3-5-07jwY.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
MR. GROSS: And we're totally wasting our time --
I'm talking in terms of short-term fixes -- other than washing
the windows and sweeping.
MR. COLEMAN: This study could potentially include
grants for either capital, or -- or potentially some of the
operating --
MR. HOFMANN: It absolutely could.
MR. COLEMAN: -- technology.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: My view is -- I mean, I think --
I think you need to look at it all. I think you need to look
at a new facility, what can be done at that facility, and --
but I still go back -- I think we need to figure out how it's
going to work operationally. I mean, I think -- and I think,
you know, they can be done simultaneously, and I think I would
be willing to support -- even if the scope of the project and
the study is larger, I mean, I think the County -- you know, I
would -- I would support funding that. I think that's an
important thing to do, and it's part of the long-range ~
direction where that library needs to get. But I still
think -- I think also, one parallel, we can look at where
we're going as a partnership, or lack of partnership.
MR. MEEK: One thing I would like is some direction
from this body, is do we still consider the library district?
One -- one attraction to that is, it gets away from the double
taxation, which I think is a significant factor here. As far
3 5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
z7
as -- as far as the operation -- or the administrative support
costs no longer being provided by the City, that would be up
to the district to go out and contract the best services for
the lowest cost. It might be the City as a provider of it;
might be someone else. But before we get totally away from a
library district, I'm just curious; I would kind of like to
hear from some of my colleagues around this table. Do we want
to explore that further?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I've long supported it, as
you know. And Mr. Lipscomb and I have had this discussion
before, and I think a couple things come to mind. If Chapter
336, as he says, limits the board -- or provides for the board
being an appointed board, and there have been no library
districts formed under that chapter -- and probably because of
that, because it's a good point; you can't go to the voters on
an appointed -- with an appointed board structure and expect
that board to levy taxes and have the voters accept that. I
-- I appreciate that. I think that's accurate. There's no
reason to believe that you could not take that point to the
Legislature and point out to them that, in their wisdom, since
they enacted this law, none have been formed, and there is
probably a pretty good reason why they haven't been formed
under this chapter, and that while you could appoint a
board -- the first board, all subsequent boards had to be
elected, and that's a change for the Legislature to tweak to
3-5-07jwk
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
make it a more workable section of law.
Secondly, you and I have had this discussion before
with respect to costs, and the point you're making is that
while some of those costs are not visible to the general
public, because the City picks up those costs of either
administrative or mowing the grass or whatever, they're still
costs. They may be hidden from public view, but they're still
costs. So, why not get them all together, put them on public
view, and say, "This is what it takes to fund your library."
And you do that through history.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In addition to -- you mentioned
Legislature. It could also go through as a local bill to
change just for Kerr County. I mean, which is -- if the City
Council and the Commissioners Court supported that, I would
suspect --
MR. MEEK: Jon, could you repeat the first part of
what you said? Changing what? The Kerr County --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It could be a local bill, only
in Kerr County.
MR. MEEK: Okay, got you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way, I think, as long as
the City Council and Commissioners Court support it, I would
think Senator Fraser would probably support it. Probably.
MAYOR SMITH: I'd like to correct a statement that
was made earlier. There are actually technically more county
3-5-07jwk
1
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
people that use the library than city people. And the -- the
city is part of the county, so everybody -- so you said they
were talking about that. Y'all -- everybody should remember,
the city is part of the county.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I said that -- I said if you
take out the city limits separately.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay. I apologize, then. But it --
but, technically, there's more county people using the
library.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You want the County to run the
library?
MR. MEEK: Would you like to? (Laughter.)
MAYOR SMITH: Want approval immediately?
MR. MEEK: Do you want that in the form of a motion?
MAYOR SMITH: Actually, long-range, we have to do
something about the library, and so we can talk about a few
years, but there's -- something needs to be done.
MR. BOCK: Commissioner Williams, would you say
about the library district, after the recommendation came back
from the Library Board being against the library district,
it's just -- and I know there's some logistic issue, but it
just seems to me that -- that there -- that there is a place
somewhere for a library district, in my mind, and it's still
trying to work it all through. I don't have support for one
or the other, but it -- and I've stated, too, it just seems to
3-5-07jwk
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
30
me for the long-term viability of the library, a library
someday, and sets some future planning structure for what the
library can be, instead of what -- for the past two years,
we've been on a -- basically, a year-to-year funding agreement
that really, in my opinion, causes the library to have to
shorten its focus and its course, and doesn't give it any
long-term viability.
I also, too, think that by looking at the study of
all the buildings -- and Councilman Gross has said this
numerous times, that maybe this isn't the best place for the
library. We're getting ready to review our comprehensive
plan, and we're going to focus on that comprehensive plan.
We're fixing to appoint here in the near future a committee to
steer that comprehensive plan, and that's something that, you
know, a good firm direction from these bodies would really
help that organization when they look at what downtown is to
look like in 10 to 15 years from now, and it may not include a
library. So, with this study running in conjunction with our
important, because that group is going to need some sort of
focus to determine, what are we looking at? Are we looking at
a downtown with a library, or are we looking at a downtown
without a library?
JUDGE TINLEY: I get the clear consensus here that
3-5-07jwk
1
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
the study should look a good ways out, Mr. Hofmann, and also
how it's going to interplay with the short-term use of those
buildings, and then the longer term use of them. Of course,
that's something that the City will want to incorporate in its
plan, as Councilman Bock indicated. Okay. Have we pretty
well wrung that one out, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SMITH: I believe so.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We have, but I don't have any
idea as to where we're going.
MR. MEEK: Direction.
i COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've talked a lot.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- the sense I get is that the
study that the City is about to get launched with its
j privately contributed funds is going to be a longer-term
', study; look at short-term use of that library complex, but
with a view of what the long-term solution is, with possibly
an entirely new facility, and together with what funding
avenues may be available for that -- for a new facility, if
that's the direction that's gone.
MR. HOFMANN: Thank you for that, I think, excellent
summary of what's been discussed, Judge. And unless someone
would like to correct it, I see that as the direction I think
we're heading in.
MR. MEEK: I would suggest exploring Bill's idea
with the Legislature to give one more avenue of suggested
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
32
change in legislation.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I believe we could make a
case before Representative Hilderbran, as Commissioner Letz
points out, the local bill, and cite the reasons why, the
current elements for forming a district.
MR. MEEK: The point being, you could get a change
and still not go that direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's right, exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You're talking two years down
the road to get it done, anyway. It will be the next session,
so we're looking at --
MR. HOFMANN: You can certainly put an item on the
City Council agenda for the Council to consider making that
request.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other part of the
study, and what I heard the Judge say, kind of, is to look at
how it's going to get funded long-term.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: And -- and correct me --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As Option 3.
MR. HOFMANN: Correct me on this if I overstate it,
but in the short term, in terms of preparing a budget for
fiscal '08, we'll -- we'll prepare a budget for fiscal '08
that looks at holding the County's contribution constant, from
3-5-07jwk
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a -- to use your words earlier, flat. Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Everybody happy at that? I guess we
go on to the Animal Control situation. Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SMITH: Okay, that's our next agenda item. Do
MR. HOFMANN: Mayor, I -- the City Council received
a few days ago, and the County Commissioners received in the
packet recently, a memorandum from Charlie Hastings to
overview some statistics about use of the Animal Control
facility and how that relates to relative funding. And,
Charlie, if you don't mind, I'd like to overview your
findings.
MR. HASTINGS: That's fine. I've been asked to
data from the Kerr County Animal Control facility. They keep
logs of all the animals that come in, where they come from, et
cetera. And the history is that, historically, Animal Control
service has been provided by the County, and the City has been
sharing 40 percent, while the County is participating at 60,
and that there was dead animal pickup. Now, I've looked at
some data all the way back to 1999 that deals with that, and
more recently, in 2004 and 2005, the City was, in fact,
responsible for about 40 percent of the animals, whether they
were live, dead, and the City was paying about $75,000 a year
in those years. In fiscal year '06, and again in '07, the
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
dead animal pickup was removed from the services, and the cost
especially now that dead animal's been removed, is responsible
for less than 30 percent of the work that's generated out
there, and in '06, it was 27 percent. And to-date in '07,
it's 28 percent. At the end of the year, we'll know if it's
going to be higher or lower, but we anticipate it ought to be
about what it was last year, somewhere less than 30 percent.
Removing dead animals has resulted in a hardship to the city,
to the tune of $27,000 for us to pick up those dead animals,
so the City's paying more from both ends. As far as the
service goes, the service is not really responsive,
particularly at the end of the day. There's no Animal Control
officer available after 5 p.m., and they will not pick up
stray animals unless they are posing a threat to the public.
These are just some of the facts and issues. We're
probably sit and talk about these issues in more depth.
The -- the '06 amount that the City paid, again, it went --
I
from 'OS to '06, it went from $76,000 to 128, and for '07,
it's $148,000. I know there's a -- a memo in there that talks
about how much we're paying for this year. I think there was
a typo listing last year's amount, but this year it's
3-5-O~jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
35
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm making a couple of comments.
On the dead animal pickup, I mean, I think I don't disagree at
all, but the reason I think is very important. You can't put
dead animals in the same vehicle, without totally sanitizing,
of -- of -- you know, I don't think it was that the County
wouldn't do it. It's that the County's -- City's going to
have to pay for it one way or the other, because our Road and
Bridge does it in the county. Animal Control doesn't do that
service in the county either, and it's because of the issue of
having dead animals and live animals in the same truck. So,
they're -- that was the reason for that. It wasn't -- it was
an arbitrary thing. And it's handled differently in the
county, and it makes more sense to do it the same way in the
city as it is done in the county.
On the -- the other portion of the funding, I mean,
thought the ratios had switched when we made the change last
year, but I think the rates -- the cost should be done
proportionally. And if the numbers are saying that they're --
the City's paying too much, I think the City should pay less.
I think they should pay their proportionate part, based on
pickup, and that's the best -- you know, best measure, in my
mind. The -- on the after 5:00 issue, that's, again, an issue
3-5-07jwk
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of funding. I mean, that can be a service, but that means
increasing staff, substantially. And, you know, it's a -- if
the City wants that, that can be built in, but that's going to
certainly be a cost borne by the City to do that. So, that's
just a -- that's a -- you know --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Cost of business.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, cost of business. I mean,
you know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Also, if you add the unknowns
that you have listed as 39 percent, it gets real close. If
you split those two out and add them -- add them into each one
of our lines, that's almost a 50/50 split. And also, the
Animal Control facility has been doubled in size over the last
year. We're going to probably have to add another -- another
person out there to take care of additional duties, and just
more responsibility and more hours are required to maintain
that facility in the coming year. I don't think we can
continue to do it with five people; I think it will take six.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The split under this year is
60/40 or 50/50? Under the current -- in 2007?
MR. HASTINGS: From what we understand, it was --
from '06, it was 60/40. From '07, I don't know what the split
was. I don't know how much the County's contributing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We paid 60 in '06?
MR. HASTINGS: We did, the City.
3-5-O~jw4:
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: So, according to Bruce, it
should be about 50/50.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, it's looking to me, if
that's the numbers -- I assume they are -- you know, we can
adjust that accordingly, I would think.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looks -- you know, 50/50 split.
The other issue is just whether y'all want the service or not.
I mean, it can be done; it's just a matter of the cost of it.
MR. MEEK: I was surprised to see -- you're saying
there's no stray animal pickup unless they're a threat?
MR. HASTINGS: Unless they're a threat.
MR. MEEK: That -- that raises some real important
questions. We've had stray pickup, at least in the city, for
a very long time, as long as I can remember. It seems to me
that is a big problem that is not being addressed here. If it
falls on law enforcement, and there's some allusion to that
here, that's a cost also. And I don't think your regular
patrol officers or Sheriff's deputies are crazy about rounding
up either little animals or big animals. I'm seeing a couple
smiles -- one smile back there. Isn't that a function of
Animal Control that we should be considering here?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I think you have to
go back to what we want. The more you pick up, the more you
euthanize. The more you euthanize, you get into a lot of hot
water. Y'all don't get the brunt, but, I mean, it's a -- you
3-5-O~jwk
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
know, we have euthanized a number of pets, and it's not a
pretty scene when that happens. It happens on at least an
annual basis, a couple times a year. If you get really
aggressive on the pickup side, the facility gets filled up;
you've got to do something with the animals. That just kind
of goes into what the public wants. Most of those cats that
are strays are pets; they're not true strays. I mean, in the
county, they're taken care of in another way, but -- at least
in the eastern part of the county. But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They're not all feral.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, I think there's --
feral animals, or -- put out traps and all that. But, boy,
you get neighbors against neighbors and you get, you know,
Fluffy put to sleep, and it's a -- it's not a fun situation.
And I think it's a matter as to how aggressive both the City
and the County want to go after stray animals. I mean, the
County's tried to put in some registration requirements and
things of that nature, but it's -- it's kind of been largely
on a voluntary basis, even though it's a rule. And I think,
you know, if the City wants to get real hard-nosed about it, I
think the City needs to be prepared for the consequences of
being real hard-nosed about it.
MR. MEEK: The alternative is, I mean, they're just
s-s-o~~wr
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
neutering, they're breeding anyway. But what is preferable?
Just happening out there on its own, or -- or being proactive?
It's a good question.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't disagree with you. I
just wanted to point out the other side of being aggressive in
that area.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No matter how proactive you
want to be, you can be picking up somebody's dog that just got
out of the yard and took off down the street. He may go back
to that yard in an hour.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the pickup -- I'm sorry.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If the pickup of dead
I
animals is an issue -- I can understand why there's some
concern on the part of the City. Certainly, in the next
budget, you can consider jointly funding a vehicle just for
that purpose. I can't imagine our Road and Bridge Department
would object to not having to pick up dead animals any more.
'Cause if we took that out --
MR. MEEK: Well, they're not picking up on -- oh,
you're talking about in the county. They're not picking up --
the City's picking them up in the city.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the County's -- Road and
Bridge picks them up in the county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But if they had a vehicle to
3-5-O~jwk
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
pick up dead animals and a staff person dedicated to that
purpose, both the City and the County, and fund it
accordingly, that might be an answer.
MR. MEEK: What's the worst -- can one -- one
vehicle and one person, or whatever that is, handle the whole
county?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Don't know. We can find
I out.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would suspect so.
MR. COLEMAN: That's a good idea, Bill. That's one
thing we've talked about last meeting, I think, is maybe the
City donating a used pickup to -- to the Animal Control; that
they could use that without having to sanitize it every time,
and then address whatever labor would be necessary.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Might be part of the
I solution.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't know how many animals
that is every year annually. But the highways aren't picked
up, because all of the state highway stuff is picked up by the
State. The County picks up all the county stuff, County Road
and Bridge does. And so I don't know how many of those you
actually have in the city.
MR. COLEMAN: And, Bruce, you missed --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Give me an idea.
MR. COLEMAN: You missed our last meeting. I
3-5-07jwk
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
started telling the story about a dead doe across the street
from me, and everybody almost took me to jail when I picked it
up and took it off.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, I don't know how many
animals we're talking about. Is it enough to fund a full-time
person or a half-time person, or what would it be? You
wouldn't think there'd be that many animals that couldn't be
picked up at least in a couple of hours a day inside the city.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be a morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Most of them are pretty well
taken care of.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Be a morning. I would think it
would be a morning.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: First thing in the morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: You could probably combine the
numbers from our Road and Bridge and the numbers that
Mr. Hastings has that he's developed since they've been doing
it within the city, and the combination of those numbers would
give you at least a good start toward it, I would think.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't --
MAYOR SMITH: Once again, when we're talking about
Kerr County and Kerrville, we're talking about Kerr County
outside the city limits. And, you know, if we're going to
divide things, that seems like -- when the -- when you live in
3-5-07jwk
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the city and you pay county taxes, you ought to stay in the
city. Because the county guys pay a certain amount to have
their animals picked up; the city guys don't get any benefit
out of it, so we ought to have an adjustment in taxes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I live in the city, Mayor,
and I'm not complaining.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, I know you're not complaining,
but you complain enough anyway. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, what's wrong with the
city work crews picking it up?
MAYOR SMITH: No, it -- I just want to make sure we
understand what -- when we're talking about city and county,
we're talking about city is a -- is inside the city, and the
county is outside.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if we took that kind of
approach, then the County would have to pay 100 percent of
everything that's -- of all the cost of everything that's
done inside the city, too. But you haven't incorporated the
city --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mr. Mayor, you need to take
your issue to Harvey Hilderbran.
MAYOR SMITH: That's worse than talking to Bill
I Williams.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. Obviously, Bill's
not going to listen to you any more. (Laughter.)
3-5-07jw}:
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR SMITH: That's right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, seems to me that
the funding should be adjusted, it appears, to 50 -- more
50/50, and that if the City wants additional service, it can
be done.
MR. COLEMAN: I'm a little confused. Charlie, the
unknown origin category, why is that? What is that? Is that
-- could that be city? Could that be county? Is that just
where the paperwork is not --
MR. MEEK: When you drop your doe off and don't tell
them you did it.
MR. COLEMAN: Maybe I need to start billing here.
MR. HASTINGS: I -- you know, I asked that question
of Janie Roman, I think, probably six months ago, and I -- I
couldn't remember what exactly -- it was something like that.
They just didn't know where it came from. There was an animal
got dropped off; could have come from the city, could have
come from out of the city, could have come from out of the
county. They do -- I know that last year, they accepted a
fair number of dogs from out of the county. When you look at
the statistics, you go, "Wow, that jumped from 1 percent to 7.
What happened?" She said, "Well, there's a bunch of
facilities outside of our county that found out that we could
-- we could handle their animals in a humane way, and they
couldn't, so they brought them to us."
3-5-07jwk.
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I need to find out about that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's not good.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We don't need to be taking any
out-of-county animals.
MR. BOCK: So, Charlie, you're saying the unknown
origin is like a citizen bringing in -- bring in and drop off?
MR. HASTINGS: I think it's a drop-off that you -- I
don't know enough of the details, but it's unknown. I mean,
it is exactly what it says; it's -- they don't know where it
came from.
MR. BOCK: Okay.
MR. HASTINGS: Maybe someone brought it in, and
they -- they said, "Well, I don't" -- you know, "I just found
this in the" --
MR. COLEMAN: That might be like our landfill. You
all might want to, for out-of-county, raise the rate on that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Part of --
MAYOR SMITH: The solution is to tell people to run
over animals on state highways.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Part of what happens with that
percentage that you're talking about, I -- this is one of the
things I've inherited since I've been back on the Court, is
Animal Control. A lot of what happens is, you have a lot of
surrenders. That's what it's really called. People -- older
people can't take care of animals any more. They bring them
3-5 07jwk
45
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in and just surrender them, and the County takes them, and you
don't know whether that came from a city person or a county or
where it came from, and then the County deals with it. Animal
Control deals with it.
MR. COLEMAN: There are a couple of pretty strong
organizations for pets, lost animal rescue --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
MR. COLEMAN: Do they work with you at all?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. Even the Humane Society
picks up animals periodically that they think are more
adoptable; they'll take them in, or animal rescue will take
some. Or if they get one that they can't -- you know, that's
too wild for them to handle, or too mean, they'll actually
work with us. But it's a hard deal; you don't know. If
anybody needs a white mule, we happen to have one at Animal
Control right now that was surrendered the other day. It's
not a motorized white mule; it's a real white mule. So, if
you know anybody in need of one, we have one.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what Rusty needs.
Rusty, you need that white mule.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be Rusty's new patrol car.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah. Bobby Johnson.
MR. HOFMANN: All-terrain.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How big is it?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: About 13 and a half hands.
3-5-07jwk
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh my god, Rusty, that's --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's a racing deal. You could
use it to go for the 4th of July races.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I can see us now.
MR. COLEMAN: Smarter than horses.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Anyway, you do have a
lot of surrenders. And, incidentally, Animal Control is not
-- is adopting out a lot more animals than what they used to.
I think it's up to about 75 percent.
MR. COLEMAN: That are adopted out?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That are adopted out. And
with the larger facility that now we have more capacity, we
don't have to euthanize as often or as many, so it is doing
much better than it was originally. But it is going to
require a little more staff to be able to do that. I mean,
there's just more work. There's more kennels to clean,
there's more feeding, there's more to do recordkeeping on.
And it's -- it's doing very well, I think, and it's going to
do better. The new H.R. Director and I are working pretty
closely with Ms. Roman, and things are going to get better.
It's a hard job for them.
MR. MEEK: Can someone summarize the direction we're
going here in this meeting?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think funding is a --
readjusted to what the usage is, which appears to be 50/50. I
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
47
mean, that's -- and then I think it's a City Council decision
whether they want dead animal pickup, to really look at how to
accomplish that through the animal facility, what that cost
would be to the City. And those are the main issues. The
MAYOR SMITH: How does the State pick up their
allocation between entities all over the world is just nothing
but a constant argument, unfortunately. So, it would have to
be a settlement or compromise of some kind or other.
MR. MEEK: The one thing about -- if there is some
vehicle in place to pick up stray animals at some level, I
think you -- that will encourage people to keep their animals
up, instead of risking having them picked up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's a good point. I
think that the -- it's -- could be looked at, though, and
Bruce talk to them and say, "You got a dog that's out all the
time; it gets picked up."
MR. MEEK: Kind of like the speed limit; right,
guys? May not get caught every time, but do you want to risk
it?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Charlie, while they're
Under the
3-5-07jwk
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
will not pick up stray animals unless it's a threat to the
public." Do you understand that to be after 5:00, or anytime?
MR. MEEK: Anytime.
MR. YOUNG: Normally, it's after 5:00.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sir?
MR. YOUNG: Normally, it's after 5:00, Commissioner
Baldwin, and weekends. During the day, when Animal Control is
there, they respond to stray pickups on our call, but after
5:00 is the issue.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay.
MR. YOUNG: And right as it's getting close to 5:00,
because of their staffing level.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. I think these are --
Animal Control officer after 5:00, and then this other item
here I think is something that we need to talk about a little
bit amongst --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well -- well, do you want to
put kind of a time -- time limit on what time you basically
stop picking up those animals? I mean, I don't think that
anybody's going to want to do that 24 hours a day, unless
there is a threat to the public health and safety. Because,
you know, what's the point in somebody getting up at 1 o'clock
in the morning, and they've got a barking dog that's staying
on the street corner; call Animal Control to come pick them
up, and that's not -- that, to me, is not cost-effective or
3-5-09jwk
49
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
reasonable. We need to have some cutoff time of whenever --
you know, unless it's an emergency, it isn't going to happen.
MR. GROSS: Well, it's not safe to the guys doing
the pickup.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do what?
MR. GROSS: Its' not safe to the guys doing pickup
either, 1 o'clock in the morning, to go chasing somebody's
dog. I don't think so.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure not, 'cause whoever is in
the next house or over there might think there's a prowler and
shoot the Animal Control person. So, you know, you got to
think about them, too.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, I agree with Jonathan's
statement that we ought to -- we ought to be on a usage fee
basis. I don't have a problem with that. I look at the 30 to
40 percent of unknown origin, and that -- that's kind of high.
I'd like to see everybody work to get that identified. But if
it ought to be 50/50, I think I'm probably okay with that.
I'm still not sure about the dead animal pickup. If we
donated a -- a used truck to Animal Control, would they be
able to absorb that duty for us?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. That, or we could
furnish you one and you could do it. (Laughter.)
MR. COLEMAN: I jumped out there first.
MR. MEEK: Did you just volunteer?
3-5-09jwk
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I always like to put a shoe on
one foot and the other, see if it's equal.
MR. GROSS: How many animals are we talking about?
MR. HASTINGS: Five to ten a week.
MR. GROSS: One or two every day.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What did you just say? I
didn't hear.
MR. HASTINGS: Five to ten a week.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Dead animals?
MAYOR SMITH: Inside the city. Doesn't include the
county.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Inside the city limits?
MR. HASTINGS: Inside the city limits.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if we get an extra
person I would think that we're going to have to have, maybe
we could designate their time -- or the manager could
designate their time with the city vehicle to going first
thing in the morning, before their other duties start, and go
pick up dead animals, and then come back to the facility. I
mean, that's a possibility, I would think.
MR. COLEMAN: I would agree with that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly, the contribution of the
vehicle could keep the overall cost down, no question about
that. At least initial capitalization.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Can we stop by and fill up
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
51
once a week over at your --
MR. COLEMAN: No, no, wait a minute. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I shouldn't push it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, hang in there, buddy.
MAYOR SMITH: John, do your patrolmen report dead
animals? How are they reported? Your people report them?
MR. YOUNG: And we get a lot of calls from citizens,
particularly in neighborhoods, particularly if there's a deer
that's struck in the neighborhood, that lands in the road, and
we'll get a call pretty quickly.
MAYOR SMITH: Like the Judge said, we've beaten this
horse pretty well.
JUDGE TINLEY: We pretty well thrashed that one. Do
you want to go on to the next one, Mr. Mayor, Fire and EMS?
MAYOR SMITH: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: Mayor, this is -- thank you, Charlie.
This is another follow-up item from your last August meeting,
where most of the -- most of the discussion amongst the County
Commissioners, you might recall, suggested that we look at
some options for increasing EMS fees, and Raymond and his
staff have done exactly that, and have prepared a few options
and alternatives. And if it's okay, I'd like for Chief
Holloway to give us an overview of that amount.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Good morning. Like the City Manager
3-5-07jwk
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
52
said, going back to some of the comments that were made at
I this meeting last year, we are looking at some of the things
that would help us go toward some of the things that the
County asked us to look at, and one of the things that came up
during the conversation was charging more for the county
residents; come up with some kind of way to do that, as
opposed to the city residents. One way we looked at -- we
So,
Another thing that the County asked us to -- y'all
-- and also the committee that y'all formed last year looked
at those same options, and they felt like that we were doing
everything that we could to make sure that we get all the
revenue from billing, as much as possible. Also, during that
period, we -- I was told that your billing people really
didn't want to do that. One of the differences between, you
know, collecting for fines or stuff like that, if people don't
pay the fines, you put them in jail. Kind of hard to put
somebody in jail if they can't pay a medical bill, so -- we're
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
53
not allowed to do that. So, all we can basically do is send
that's all they do, is they collect for EMS operations, so
they're pretty familiar with that kind of -- type of
collection.
There was some mention about doing an ESD also for
the entire county, and, you know, the City, I think, would be
opposed to that, 'cause we already have the ability to -- to
tax residents to help pay for this fee. Now, if the County
wanted to take outside the city limits, that would be one way
maybe to help pay for some of the costs. But one thing you
need to remember is that an ESD is their own entity, and I'm
not sure if they would be willing -- I'm not sure how that
works, but willing to collect in their area and turn that
money over to help pay for this operation. I'm not sure how
that would work. And the last thing that we looked at was
increasing the fees in order to help offset some of the costs.
One of the Commissioners said that it should be a user-pay
only system, and that would be pretty great if we could do
that. Part of the problem is that with Medicare and Medicaid,
they'll only pay a certain amount of money, and when
70 percent of our patients that we pick up are Medicare and
Medicaid, then that really makes this proposition pretty much
a losing proposition.
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
59
MR. MEEK: Can I ask you a question right there?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Sure.
MR. MEEK: I'm sure you've run these numbers
backwards and forwards, but I don't fully understand the point
of diminishing return on a rate increase. 70/30. Okay,
30 percent either have the ability to pay themselves, or their
medical insurance will pick it up. Is there a maximum amount
the insurance will pay the ambulances?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Generally, insurance companies will
-- you know, I know when I go to the doctor, I get a bill back
that shows what the charge was and what insurance will allow,
which is generally less than what the doctor charges. And
then they'll only pay an 80 percent rate.
MR. MEEK: But do you know, on ambulances, as far as
insurance is concerned, is there a maximum in there that they
will allow? And would it make sense to go up to that maximum?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, actually, we're above what the
insurance companies would normally allow -- will normally pay
for that -- for that charge.
MR. MEEK: So, then you look to the individual on
top of that?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
MR. HOFMANN: Raymond, you might help answer
Mr. Meek's questions in terms of that chart. Carl, what is
allowed for each of these individual fees is depicted on the
3 5-07jwk
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
chart.
MR. HOLLOWAY: This is -- this is what Medicare will
allow under the -- in the second row. That's what Medicare
currently will pay. No matter what you charge, that's what
they'll pay.
MR. MEEK: Row or column?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Column, where it says the EMS
allowable.
MR. MEEK: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: On non-emergency call, they'll only
pay 80 -- $180. Emergency is 289. And you can see on the --
on the two-tier current fees, that those are the fees that
we're currently charging. So, the non-emergency, we're
currently charging 83 percent more than what Medicare will
allow. And what ends up happening on the Medicare portion of
it, your disallowed -- the more you charge, the more your
disalloweds will be.
MR. MEEK: Raymond, I've heard you say that a number
of times, but it's immaterial, the amount. If they disallow
$1 or they disallow $100, anything above their set amount is
disallowed.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
MR. MEEK: You don't get the payment, so it doesn't
matter what the disallowables are.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, but that works against -- and
3 s o~~w~
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
I'm not a finance wizard, but that works against the budget.
See, that shows as a loss. That shows up as a loss in your --
in your revenues.
MR. MEEK: Well, that may be. That's not a genuine
loss. The -- what I am wondering is, if we're -- if we charge
-- if we significantly raise those rates, it doesn't matter;
we're already above the -- already have disallowables. It
doesn't matter on the Medicare part.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well --
MR. MEEK: What you do is collect more money from
private folks with or without insurance.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's -- well, that is correct.
MR. MEEK: And every dollar you collect there is
less that these two bodies have to make up.
MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Meek, you make a good point, and
-- and you guys correct me if I'm wrong. There's a difference
between the disalloweds and the bad debt. And in these
different --
MR. HOLLOWAY: I was getting to that.
MR. HOFMANN: And in these different rate increase
scenarios, you -- you do make a good point. I don't think
we're assuming a higher rate of disalloweds with the increased
rates, but we are assuming a higher rate of bad debt. So --
MR. MEEK: Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: -- your point is well made, but --
s-s-o~~wx
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
57
MR. MEEK: That's a good point.
MR. HOFMANN: -- I think we've made that assumption.
MR. MEEK: But -- go ahead.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- maybe the
Chief can go through and look, 'cause you're recommending a
change, or a possible change.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, some options for change.
MR. MEEK: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, as I understand it,
we're going to get somewhere down that road. Not at far as we
want, but....
JUDGE TINLEY: Chief? Is it not true, though, by
increasing the rates, you increase the ability for those that
have supplements to their Medicare coverage?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No, that's incorrect. The supplement
only pays the 20 percent that Medicare doesn't pay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Private pay is the only place, if
you're going to pick up some slack?
MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Private pay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Private pay and private insurance.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. And the thing that was
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
58
kind of unknown to us is the bad debt. We don't know how
much -- the more you raise the rates, the more the bad debt.
You know, people are just not going to pay the bills. And
right now, we're estimating -- what, 21 percent? So, we're --
we don't know, if -- if we really put a -- jack them up there
pretty high, how much more bad debt we're looking at.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But you're going to generate
more revenue, 'cause they're -- not everybody's on Medicare.
Not everybody's on Medicaid.
MR. HOFMANN: You will generate more revenue.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what we're trying to
do, I believe, is generate more revenue to cut the subsidy on
both entities.
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm curious about that
estimate of bad debt running from 13 to -- to 20, 21 percent.
That's a 62 percent increase. That's a heavy, heavy increase
on bad debt ratio. I'm also curious as to how -- part of your
recommendation, Chief, states that you have to study the data
on bad debt from three to five years.
MR. MEEK: That's a long time.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think in three to five
years, you'll find out the bad debt ratio will go up.
MR. HOLLOWAY: We would look at that on an annual
basis, of course, but we were looking at an average. The
3-5-07jw4.
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
59
reason we were saying that is an average of how much the bad
-- I mean, next year, if we did next year, the bad debt might
be 40 percent, and then next year it could only be 20 percent,
and so we were looking at an average over a three- to
five-year period.
MR. MEEK: Chief, what you just said, instead of
waiting -- and, Bill, instead of waiting three to five years
to hit, you know, a significant increase, on the assumption --
why not do that in this next budget year and see what happens?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, that's entirely up to the
Council on how high we raise the bills. These are just
recommendations on what we feel like would be the best way to
go. But if y'all want to raise the rates higher than that,
that's y'all -- up to y'all.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would suggest that you would
raise them pretty soon and have a test run between now and
budget time. Is that possible to do, to raise the rates at
any particular time? Or does it have to wait till budget
time?
MR. HOLLOWAY: It would have to go through Council
for a budget amendment.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that.
MR. HOEMANN: I think our -- the point you're making
is a good one. I think the -- I think the reason we
recommended the Option 2 and not the Option 3 is because we're
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
60
a little bit concerned about rate shock if -- for lack of a
better way of putting it, for a $20,000 benefit. We have that
opportunity, but we -- we're trying to pay attention to what
other services in the region charge. And for a $20,000
additional revenue, which in the grand scheme of things isn't
a lot, that's a very, very significant rate increase. It's
not going to eliminate the subsidies from the general
government by any stretch, but as Raymond said, that's
ultimately up to the City Council.
MR. MEEK: Paul, I'd like to point out, ambulance
service is different than other items that are -- would
probably be more price-sensitive. You don't anticipate -- I
would think the general population is not going to anticipate
a ride in any one calendar year to a hospital in an ambulance.
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
MR. MEEK: You know, I just want to point that out.
It's a whole different service that we're talking about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, also, people that I've
talked to that have had to, unfortunately, go in an ambulance,
whether it's here or anywhere else, they have sticker shock
already. I mean --
MR. MEEK: Here's the thing. If this is going to
safe my life, how much is too much money?
MR. HOFMANN: Okay. Well, we can certainly prepare
a -- a fee increase that looks at Option 3.
3-5-07jwk
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
61
MR. HOLLOWAY: I would like to hire an extra person
for complaints, though. We got a lot of complaints right now
under the current bills. But, yeah, it's -- and we'll be glad
to do whatever y'all would like for us to do. I think that
the citizens out there that actually is riding the ambulance,
30 percent of them are going to carry a big load to increase
the revenues $70,000, $80,000. And these are estimates, by
the way. But, yeah, if y'all would like for to us do that, we
can prepare that and bring it back to the Council for y'all's
approval.
MR. MEEK: Raymond, I don't know much about the
medical practice, but I think that's the case in doctors'
I offices right now; I think you have the non-Medicare,
non-Medicaid subsidizing the others. And I think you'll see a
number -- you see a number of doctors in this community that
limit their practice so they can.
MR. HOLLOWAY: We've discovered that there are some
doctors that won't see Medicare and Medicaid patients.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That certainly is the case
with respect to hospitalization, emergency room fees, a charge
for people who can't afford it. They're picked up by
increasing fees to everybody who's in the hospital or Indigent
Health Care, which the County funds to the tune of a million
bucks a year.
MR. MEEK: Sure.
3-5-07~wk
1
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
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And in general, I'm probably in
favor of Option 3. But, you know, I'd like to see those
numbers, but I think you're going in the right direction. I
think we need to increase our fees, and I think the mileage --
I totally support that. I mean, the county people are paying
more, and they should pay more, the longer distance. So, I'd
like -- I want to get to, if we're done with that, a more
philosophical discussion on where we're going. And I've
talked to Mr. Holloway about this. He knows the Falling Water
situation in the far eastern part of the county, and some
areas that don't even have good access in -- or any access in
Kerr County are getting a lot of development now. We need to
figure out a plan as to how we handle those.
Two developments going in off Ranger Creek Road,
potentially. I don't know how that's going to happen out
there, but, you know, you're going have a situation there
where you don't even have, at the current time, any access.
People live off that road in Kerr County right now that don't
have access. How do we handle those areas? There's more
developments going in right around Gillespie County, Kendall
County line, totally in Kerr County, but you can't get there
from anywhere very easily. Falling Water situation, I think
everyone is aware that we're working on a situation where
Kendall County's going to be the primary responder there, and
I would suspect that this same issue is out there.
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
63
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Same thing in Kimble and Kerr,
the Y.O. Ranchlands, and even that whole area out there.
There's more development out on 83, that Kimble County can get
there much quicker than -- than Kerrville EMS can.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I think I'd like -- you
know, long range, I'd really like to see the City look at how
i they would put, if they need to serve the county, a facility
~ towards Center Point or in Center Point. You know, that's the
area that would cover the eastern part of the county. I don't
know if it makes sense to put another facility out in far west
Kerr County, if that's even an option with the population
density.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm not sure far west, but I
don't believe it would be a bad thing to consider in Ingram,
'cause that puts you closer to a lot of those other areas.
And then, also, you can respond to the west side of Kerrville
from there, too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think my view is, I mean, the
level of service, the quality of service, absolutely no
complaint. I don't want to make a change from the City of
Kerrville. But I think other side of that is, we need to
see -- if the County's willing to make that commitment to the
City of Kerrville EMS, then we'd like to see -- I'd like for a
commitment from the EMS to expand beyond the sections --
somehow beyond the city limits.
3-5-07jwk
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOFMANN: We can -- well, we can certainly look
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOFMANN: Because -- and I appreciate your
county, and it's a developing county, and the only way you're
going to deal with lingering response time issues is to build
facilities out there. And, sure, we can look at the cost
associated with that and report back to the County
Commissioners and the City Council.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the only way
we're going -- you know, long term, how we're going to handle
some of the other areas of the county.
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It may be that it won't work to
continue in some areas without doing something different. And
the other side of that is, areas like Falling Waters, which is
a -- I mean, there's going to be a fee that Kerr County's
going to be paying Kendall County. I think that that fee
should be reduced -- I mean, should be reflected in the
eastern part of the components of our actual cost. I mean, if
we're removing a piece of Kerr County out of it, I think there
should be some reflection. You know, it's a very confusing
situation. They're also a backup.
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
65
MR. HOLLOWAY: We're not totally out of the
situation.
MR. HOFMANN: And a backup first responder is -- I
mean, as I understand that, and -- and there'll be an
agreement that's ultimately brought before the City Council
and the County Commissioners. They will have an opportunity
to talk about it. And, certainly, you make a good point about
we need to look at reducing the amount of the County
contribution. I think it would be a better point if we
weren't still the primary responder to that area, and we have
to treat Falling Waters as if we have to respond. And so I
think it's something we have to look at.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the first responder
issue is a -- is being removed from this, so that first
responders of Kerr County are still under Kerr County First
Responder program, even though the likelihood is that in
Falling Waters, the first responder is very likely to come out
of Kendall County, because most of them come out of the fire
department there. And those residents are probably 50/50 as
to who the volunteers are; some are Kerr County and some
Kendall County, but they both respond up there to work in the
fire department.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, I mean, just something
that, like you said, will be brought before the City Council
3-5-07jwk.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
66
and Commissioners Court again, hopefully before too long. And
Paul and I have talked.
MR. HOFMANN: Thank you.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Any other questions?
MAYOR SMITH: You know, if you stationed EMS, say,
at Ingram or something, I know you like the policy of sending
a fire truck along.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, in the county, we have first
responders that respond.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay, so that's taken care of.
MR. HOLLOWAY: First Responder program, and Eric's
in charge of that, and they're stationed in the county at
different -- not stationed, but they're located in different
parts of the county and help respond with the ambulance and
assist those guys.
MAYOR SMITH: I think it was mentioned somewhere how
our rates are comparable to other areas. That -- would Option
1, 2, or 3 be more comparable to similar situations?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Probably Option 3 would be closer to
other areas.
MAYOR SMITH: So, in other words, if we'd go to
Option 3, we're not getting out of -- of a fair market value,
you might say?
MR. HOFMANN: No, we're not.
MAYOR SMITH: So -- so there's some logic in going
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
67
to Option 3.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And we --
MAYOR SMITH: None of them are going to solve our
problem.
MR. HOLLOWAY: We were recommending to go to Option
3 eventually, you know, anyway, but we'll look at doing that
sooner.
MAYOR SMITH: I think, Jonathan, you mentioned you'd
prefer to go to Option 3, or Bill, one or the other.
Everybody --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think everybody.
MAYOR SMITH: -- pretty much likes Option 3?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, in fact, if it couldn't
be Option 3, I would say it should be equal to whatever the
surrounding counties are charging. That may be as close as
you can get with Option 3, but that would be my suggestion.
MR. COLEMAN: Chief, did we have a retiring
ambulance unit that we were going to look at donating to
the --
MR. HOLLOWAY: That was the rescue truck.
MR. COLEMAN: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And we should get our new rescue
truck either this month or next month.
MR. COLEMAN: So that we're still --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, we're going -- I'm going to
3-5-07jwk
1
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
bring it -- come to the Council with that and see what your
pleasure would be on it, how to get rid of that pickup -- that
piece of equipment.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm glad you brought vehicles
up. I wanted to know, how is our half of the ambulance doing?
(Laughter.)
I MR. HOLLOWAY: No, your half -- we had to get rid of
it, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you allow us to buy
another half? Please?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, if we look at putting satellite
EMS operations out there, that may be something that we'd have
to look at, because we're talking about an ambulance and at
least six additional people.
MR. MEEK: Raymond, would you give him a ride in the
fire truck?
MR. HOLLOWAY: I don't think he really wants a ride
in the ambulance.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I don't.
MR. HOLLOWAY: He's ridden on the fire truck.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you talk about
satellites, don't forget my part of the county out south.
I've got Kinky Friedman out there. What are those -- those
three ladies that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dixie Chicks.
3-5-O~jw}:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
69
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dixie Chicks. And I use
"ladies" loosely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're across the line, though.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you never know. You
never know when we're going. But I just wanted to commend
Chief Holloway. I wanted to commend Chief Holloway and the
City, and his staff for at least moving toward what we had
been requesting, and our way of thinking. I appreciate that
very much.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're moving toward a good
relationship here, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are we ready to move to fire now?
Mr. Mayor, if we could, I've got a reporter here that probably
needs to take a break. If we could -- if we're at a
convenient break point, if we're through with EMS module, if
we could take us about a 15-minute break here, why, I think we
got plenty of time, based on what I see we got left.
MAYOR SMITH: Mighty fine.
(Recess taken from 9:49 a.m. to 10:05 a.m.)
MAYOR SMITH: I think we'd better get back to work.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you ready to come back to order,
Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SMITH: Come back to order. Our next item is
3-5-O~jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
70
Agenda Item 5, status of efforts of the Economic Development
Strategy Committee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Mayor, I don't think we finished
up 4. We still got the fire component of it to go.
MAYOR SMITH: Oh, I'm sorry. I'm sorry. Trying to
get over that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I believe that's right, isn't it,
Chief Holloway?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SMITH: I'm sorry. Thank you, Judge.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I'd like to show you the map I
have here. It shows the county, the city limits of Kerrville,
the Kerrville South fire district, and -- not fire district,
fire area. And then, of course, the two ESD's that are in the
county right now. We -- the Kerrville South Fire Department
is a volunteer fire department. About 15 years ago, they went
defunct, and -- well, they just disbanded; I'll put it that
way. And at that time, we were asked by the County if we
could take over the Kerrville South area for fire protection,
'cause there wasn't currently anything there, and we said yes,
we'd do that. And after a period of time, we -- it appeared
that the Kerrville South Volunteer Fire Department was not
going to come back into existence, so we met with the County
and started charging to cover that area as the first
responder.
3 5 07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
71
And what -- the difference between the blue area and
the rest of the county is that we will immediately respond to
anything in that area with a fire truck or a brush truck,
additional personnel. The other areas, we don't respond
minutes, and at that time, we assume that there's not any
volunteers available at that time, so we'll go ahead and
respond. And, as you can see, the Kerrville South area is --
you know, a lot of people think of Kerrville South as south of
the river, but it actually covers a lot of the north portion
of the county above the city, all the way to the Gillespie
line, and it even covers a little area out here past the
airport, Shady Grove, Guadalupe Heights and a lot of the other
areas, and so we respond immediately to those areas. Our
general response is with -- if it's a structure fire, is with
a pumper. We also send, most of the time, a brush truck and
additional personnel, and one of our battalion chiefs will
respond out there, but we just send one truck. So, as you can
Chief, before you -- I have a
quick question on that. You send one truck. What if more
trucks are needed? How is it covered?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, we call for volunteer backup.
3 s o~~wx
72
1
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 there's a structure fire, and we -- we know that it's a
burning structure, we call for the -- some of the volunteer
departments to help us, mostly for water supply, 'cause our
pumpers don't carry a whole lot of water as compared to some
of the volunteer units. And also, the tankers -- county --
county road crews have water tankers that they sometimes send
out. Just depends on how large the fire is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- so, in that area -- well,
it's handled just like the other volunteer areas? I guess
they all have agreements, or -- I mean, just -- are there
formal agreements that all volunteer fire departments help
each other, or how does that work?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, yes and no. It's -- because we
have a contract with the County, we don't have any separate
agreements with the volunteer fire departments. It's pretty
much a blanket agreement with the volunteer -- with them to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They just all respond as needed?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Everybody helps everybody else.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mutual aid agreements.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Not -- we don't have a mutual aid
agreement inside the county. Now, we have mutual aid
agreements with the surrounding counties.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Raymond?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really think it would be
3-5-07jwk
73
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
wise to change that name from Kerrville South district.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I kind of -- that's just what
it was being called when they had it out -- you know.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I know. But when we --
MR. HOLLOWAY: We can call it anything.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When we think -- or I used to
think that when I was dealing with the budget and dealing with
you, and -- and, you know, what kind of coverage we're getting
and how much we're paying for and where you're going and all
those things, you -- I thought Kerrville South.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I think we need to get away
from that and start thinking in real terms of a particular
area, which includes all the way north to Gillespie County and
covers Commissioner Letz' as well, not -- not just me.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I don't know what -- you
might even consider -- Letz talked about ET J, or something
like that, area. But --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, we can look at renaming that.
You know, I don't really have a problem with renaming it.
That's just what it's always been called since we've been
taking -- and the reason for that is, that was the Kerrville
3-5 07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
74
South Volunteer Fire Department.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And they were located in the south
side of town.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Sure.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And it just covers part of their --
of that area.
COMMISSIONER LETZ
district.
Let's call it the Kerrville area
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Let's call it something. I
just think that with those words, it just -- you know, you
immediately draw a picture in your mind, and it's the wrong
picture.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it's misleading to the public
when they -- when they read about it in the media and they
talk about the Kerrville South fire contract, for example.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right, yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Covers a much, much larger area. In
fact, Kerrville South --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Is a small part.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- did have a --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- did have a station -- a unit
stationed at the top of the hill on the Schwethelm Ranch north
s-s-o~~wk
75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of town on Highway 16 for a long period of time.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, and there was actually one in
the -- what did they call that, Rattlesnake Creek?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Volunteer Fire Department, which was
on the north side of town. We will change the name.
MAYOR SMITH: You might mention -- briefly mention
Fire Station 4, since it'll be severing that area.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Actually, our new fire station -- we
opened bids last Wednesday for Station 4, and it's going to be
built on the north side of town, just south of the interstate.
And that -- that truck would be responding on the north side
of town.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Maybe you ought to call it
Kerrville-Kerr County or Kerrville North and Kerrville South.
MR. HOLLOWAY: We'll call it something.
MAYOR SMITH: How about Kerrville East?
MR. COLEMAN: Surrounding. Chief, what happens to
the gray area out there? What --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, this is all the -- Center Point
has a volunteer fire department. Actually, it's out here --
out here. And Turtle Creek has a volunteer fire department,
and then Hunt, and --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ingram.
MR. HOLLOWAY: -- Divide.
3-5-07jwk
1
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
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Ingram.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Of course, this is Ingram right here.
I And --
MR. AMERINE: Also Elm Pass.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, Elm Pass has a volunteer fire
department. They have a little, small department.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eastern part of the county,
primarily Comfort and Center Point, kind of have assistance.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right. They have an agreement to
help cover different parts of the -- Comfort Volunteer Fire
Department covers some of those.
MAYOR SMITH: You can kind of point out the area
that the EMS is not serving now.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, there's a little section out
here -- where is that?
MR. AMERINE: Up.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, up here. Right up here, out by
the Y.O. We're not covering that right now. That's the only
thing that we're currently not covering inside the county with
EMS.
MAYOR SMITH: That can be handled adequately with
the new arrangement?
MR. HOLLOWAY: I think so. I haven't heard any
complaints from the people out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The residents out there told
3 5-07jwk
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
77
me that everything's working fine, and that they also have
a -- a contract with the Lifeflight helicopter, whatever --
whatever that service is.
MR. HOLLOWAY: But this is the area we're kind of
talking about right here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Falling Water.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Falling Waters. You have to go into
Kendall County and then go up 83 to get to that area.
MR. MEEK: 87.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I mean 87, yeah, excuse me. Now, the
main thing we have to remember is that, you know, it only
takes a couple of seconds for a fire the get out of control,
and so it's very important you have someone that first
responds to those areas, of course, whether volunteer fire
department or paid department. And the first-in company is
really critical to being able to knock down a fire to keep it
from spreading, and also possibly saving residents in those
fires. So, what we're now -- we assist the volunteer fire
departments, and we talked about that a little bit. And, you
know, every time we send a fire truck out of the city limits,
it puts a pretty good burden on the city, because you -- if
you don't think about it, you think, well, we send a fire
trick out there, but what it does, it leaves the city with two
fire trucks, and that doesn't give us adequate protection with
the new -- some of the new laws that have come in for fighting
3-5 07jwk
1
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
structure fires. So, we generally call in off-duty personnel
county fire	contract,	and that	isn'	t in	your	-- your material
this year.	And what	we did is,	we	took	the -	- the total cost
of -- well, the cost of one fire station, and we took the --
depreciated the fire -- I mean the equipment and the personnel
~ from one station, which was nine people, and that came up with
a total cost of $705,711. We looked at the population
statistics and divided that, and came up with 14 and -- $14.94
per person, you know, for fire protection, both in the city
limits and outside the city limits. So, when we use the per
capita, that showed that the County's portion of that was
$369,451 per year.
And the main reason we showed you that is, that is
numbers right now, but the County -- you know, the County
currently is paying $125,000. That has not been increased for
several years. With the growth in the county and the city
both, but it seems like the county is -- population is
growing, and it would seem appropriate that we would increase
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
79
the current $125,000 fire contract. We're going to meet in
April in budget work session, and that'll be one of the things
that we will discuss at that time.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you give me a ballpark?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Same question I asked you the
other day when we were --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right. Well, I'm not sure we're
prepared to really give a real ballpark figure until we all
meet together.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, you're talking --
MR. HOLLOWAY: It would be more than it is now. No
matter -- you know, and it could be $150,000, all the way up
to $200,000, Buster. It just depends. We'd have to see what
the County's --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not talking about an
increase of 150,000?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're talking about 25,000
or 50,000, somewhere in there?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, somewhere in that neighborhood,
but it could be even more. I mean, I'm not going to sit down
here and tell you that's what it will be.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, we got to stop you
somewhere. (Laughter.) 25 or 50; can we just kind of hang in
3-5-07jwk
80
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there a little	bit?			
MR.	HOLLOWAY:	Well,	you can hang	on by your
fingernails.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, I think that the point Raymond
is trying to make is that this isn't -- this isn't a
discussion we've had with the City Council since -- since last
year. And last year, the number we presented to the County
Commissioners was about $307,000, based upon what we think it
requires in terms of being -- having the capacity and the
system necessary to serve that area; that we thought that
$370,000 number was defensible and made sense. I'd like the
opportunity to visit more on that subject with the City
Council. We haven't prepared a budget yet, and we're not --
and, Mr. Baldwin, you asked a good -- a good question, and we
don't mean to be evasive here, but $125,000 for the huge area
that we are responding, based upon the way we're looking at
how those costs ought to be all allocated, is -- is awfully
short, and that's the message.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I tend to agree with you, to
be honest with you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the other -- and the
other side of that, though, I think I probably brought up six
months ago or a year ago.
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Was that, yes, you're -- I don't
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
81
have any problem with what you look at; however, the volunteer
fire departments that we fund also back up the city, and I
think -- and especially in a bad situation. I think if you
look at the Saddlewood fire, a great example, we had pretty
much every volunteer fire department in the county in the city
limits fighting that fire. So, I think that there's a dollar
value to the funding that we're giving the volunteer fire
departments in the City of Kerrville, and there's a value
going the other direction.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Actually, Mr. Letz, that was in the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's close.
MR. MEEK: Jonathan, we'll give you a take-back on
or -- or EMS or fire, whatever it is, and I think there was a
good attempt last year to do that, although I understand there
is a great deal of sticker shock there. And we do want to be
logical. And -- and if there's a better way to do the
calculation, you all help us out with that. Show us.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And we only took one fire station,
not all the -- you know, my budget -- fire budget's about
3-5-O~jwk
82
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
$3.4 million, and next year it's going to be closer to $4
million when we add the new fire station. So -- so, we only
took one fire station, and we -- and we took the depreciation
into account also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Chief, when do you hope to have that
new fire station online?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Oh --
MR. HOFMANN: December.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, probably somewhere after the
next budget year in November, December.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Just coming into the new
budget year?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes. They're supposed to start
construction this month or first part of next month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What Chuck said, I mean, I think
I agree with having a way to look at it, defensible. But I
think that if you could write down how you come up with it and
then get it over to the County, we could look at it, because
the level of service you're putting in this area that you're
covering is not as great as the level of service put in the
city limits. And that's fine, but I don't think -- you can't
really look at it on a per capita basis, because it is a
different level. So, I think some adjustments need to be
made, but I agree with Chuck that it would be nice to be able
3-5-07jw4:
1
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
to have a, quote, formula to work off of.
MR. COLEMAN: That made good, logical business
i sense.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think, too, there's
one hope I think we could all have, is that whenever -- we all
know there's going to be increases every year, but trying to
keep those increases to a reasonable level. All at one time,
if you -- say if we're paying $125,000 now, to in -- to double
that in any one year, that's pretty hard to deal with, or EMS
contract or any of that sort of thing. I mean, you -- you all
expect to pay more for service every year, but you can't
double one year and then start to do 10 percent. You've got
to kind of work your way into it slowly so that all the tax
dollars match up with all the expenditures.
MR. MEEK: So, you want to go back retroactively and
phase it in?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, that's not what I'm
saying. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Raymond?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you get your new station
in, you said you were going to use -- use that station to
cover the north end up there?
MR. HOLLOWAY: What we currently do is --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And then -- and then what
3-5-07jw}:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
would -- station would you use to cover the south area?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, it depends exactly where it is.
Station 3 out here off the loop currently covers everything on
the south --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, that would remain the
same?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Right. And then the one on the west
side of town, Station 2, covers everything west and part of
the south, now that that new loop is opened up.
MR. HOFMANN: Just real quickly, to make sure
everybody understands, the cost allocation methods we put
together last year, we don't allocate every bit of the fire
department budget. We allocated the cost of -- of one truck
and one crew to man that truck, the logic being when we
respond out in the county, it's with one truck. So, it's an
allocation of the cost of the system needs necessary, and so
your costs aren't going to go up just because we added Fire
Station 4. The City's costs are going up because of Fire
Station 4, but if we were to follow that allocation method,
your cost wouldn't.
MAYOR SMITH: I'll give you the opportunity to pat
yourself on the back. You might mention the medallion that
was honored the EMS, very briefly.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I think most of y'all read in
the paper where Air Evac recognized the City of Kerrville EMS
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
as a Helping Hands Partner. And what that is, they have 11 --
Air Evac is in 11 different states, and they've got I don't
know how many different EMS operations that they deal with,
but we were nominated along with 60 other EMS operations, and
we were selected as the EMS provider of -- for that month.
And there are organizations, and they made a coin -- do y'all
have the coin with you? They made a -- they stamped a coin,
ii and on the coin it has this patch on one side, and on the
I other side, it has "Air Evac." And they're distributing that
~ coin among all the other recipients in the 11 states. So, it
was a pretty good honor for us. We're very proud of that.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Raymond, is -- in that --
kind of in that same vein, the Air Evac, is that the company
that offers the contract to private citizens out --
MR. HOLLOWAY: They are doing that with some of the
county residents. I'm not sure exactly how that operation
works.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't exactly know how it
works either, but what I do know about it, I just don't
believe there are not more people talking about that and
taking advantage of that. That sounds like a -- a super deal.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, Falling Water, six of
the residents of the households have subscribed to an air evac
service. I don't know if it's the same service, but they have
a service.
3-5-O~jwk
86
1
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: I think it is.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And if we're going to talk
about Falling Waters, they need to get a first responder
program in there and get some of those people certified.
JUDGE TINLEY: Congratulations, Chief.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yeah.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Thank you. Appreciate it.
MAYOR SMITH: That medallion, if it was in New
Orleans, would be called a doubloon.
JUDGE TINLEY: Doubloon.
MAYOR SMITH: Doubloon. Okay, back to where I was a
while ago. We're ready for Agenda Item 5, which is the status
of efforts of the Economic Development Strategy Committee.
And I believe you're the -- Judge, you're the chairman of that
committee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mr. Mayor. The -- as I'm
sure everybody recalls, there was a joint resolution to
establish this joint Economic Development Strategy Committee
by both the City Council and Commissioners Court, and we got
that established late last summer, and we went to work the
first time in October. We very quickly reached the consensus
that it was going to be necessary to have available to us a
comprehensive economic development study in order to go
forward with the committee's work. That being the case, we
enlisted the aid of Kerrville Economic Development Foundation,
3-5-O~jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
87
who agreed to make a presentation on our behalf to the
Economic Improvement Corporation for the cost of that study.
Since the committee has no funds and no source of funds, KEDF
was kind enough to do that. February 26th, the public hearing
was had before the Economic Improvement Corporation, and they
come before the committee and subsequently before the council.
I think it's scheduled to come back before the economic
committee -- excuse me, Economic Improvement Corporation March
the 19th, I believe, and we're hopeful that shortly after that
we can get the study commenced and get moving.
But we have an active committee. We've got a number
of excellent resources. Our resources include virtually every
component of what it -- what they should include, and we're
gathering more as we go. We're very, very confident that
after we get that study in-hand, we're going to be able to
present something meaningful to both of these bodies, the
Council and Commissioners Court, a strategy for consideration
and hopeful adoption in some singular conceptual form, so that
we can go forward with a strong economic development plan here
in Kerrville and Kerr County. I -- I appreciate the help that
the Council has given. I appreciate the help that all of the
resources, a number of whom are from City offices -- they've
been a wonderful help to the committee, and there has been a
3-5-07jwk
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
88
unity of purpose on that committee that has really been
encouraging, and I think anybody that's observed it is really,
really pleased with how it's going. I'm a little displeased
that we've got this delay to get the study, but that's part of
the necessary evil, I suppose, to get to the end of the road.
But that's pretty much it in a nutshell, Mr. Mayor.
MR. COLEMAN: Judge, you're doing an excellent job
keeping all those ducks lined up on that committee.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I --
MR. COLEMAN: We're all pointed the same direction.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got all the rest of you guys
hollering, I guess. That's, I guess, one of the benefits of
being the chairman. But everybody is really, really working
hard, and once we get this study in-hand, we're going to --
we're going to be hammering out something really, really
meaningful.
MR. BOCK: Judge, I'd like to stress the unity that
you spoke about, having all the different taxing entities and
all of the different -- the big umbrella with all of our
economic partners involved, and everybody -- everybody along
the same page with the same goals and the same desires as --
as everyone, and I think that's what's making this go so
swiftly and so smoothly. And I think the biggest part of this
in being -- being a part of it and being on this -- this
3-5-07jwk
1
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
committee is the end results, and 5, 10, 15 years down the
road, with the increasing of the business community and
helping to expand local opportunity for local businesses as
well. It's very exciting.
JUDGE TINLEY: Any of you guys got any questions?
I'll --
MAYOR SMITH: Mr. Williams, we've heard from our two
city guys. You're not going to let us get ahead of you two to
one, are you, without saying something?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you for that
introduction, Mayor. (Laughter.) No, I -- I fully support
what my colleagues have said and what Judge Tinley has said.
This is a unique and extraordinary opportunity for us to
advance our economic development goals and aspirations, and it
will certainly give us the guidelines we need. I'm really
anxious to see the study. I think it's going to be very, very
revealing; going to point out some things that we thought we
knew, but undoubtedly didn't know. And I -- I'm sure that --
in my mind, it will help guide us coming up with incentives
that Council and Commissioners Court can approve.
MAYOR SMITH: I think we're heading in the right
direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When do y'all see the study
being completed and coming to the bodies for approval?
3-5-07jw}:
90
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the study should take --
hopefully we'll be able to get it done within four months or
slightly more than that, according to the estimate given to us
by the -- the provider that we're all leaning towards.
There's already been presentations made; due diligence has
think we're in a position to go forward on that, and they can
get started more quickly. But about four months or slightly
more than that. Once we get that information, that's when the
hard work of the committee will begin to try and cobble
together a unified strategy for both City and County in the
way of -- of incentives to be offered for economic development
deal, expansion of existing business or attraction of new
business. So, I'm going to say probably at the earliest, you
might expect something about six months after they start the
study. That may be a little optimistic, but possibly that
late.
MAYOR SMITH: Any further discussion on that agenda
item? Let's go to Agenda Item 6, joint City/County Airport
Board.
MR. BOCK: Mr. Mayor, if you don't mind, I'll take
-- I'll take the lead on this one to start out with. I had
requested this to be put on the agenda for this -- for this
meeting for these two governing bodies to have the opportunity
to discuss our happenings out at the Airport Board, and what I
3-s-o~~wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
91
up with. A large -- and largely, one of the areas, in my
opinion, to make this a success is our airport itself. I
think our airport is -- is key to large economic development
And
representative of the City is to see the airport start to
flourish.
It seems to me that when you look back many, many,
many years, regardless of the structure of the Airport Board
or the structure of the airport, it's never been -- in my
opinion, that I have seen in the past two years and looked
into, it's never developed into what it could. And don't know
what the hinder is there, and hopefully, as we've discussed,
this economic development strategy will create some options.
And I know there's a lot going on at the airport right now. I
know that the airport is looking to do a master plan. I know
that the -- the master plan, hopefully -- which will be a
portion of TexDOT's funding; is that correct? -- will be able
to work with the economic development's strategic -- that
we've hired, which is TXP out of Austin, to work together to
come to some sort of mutual agreement or mutual aid in order
to help that area flourish.
And what I would like to see -- and I've seen some,
3-5-07jw4:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
92
have a third there representing either other body. I will
say, it is -- it's -- I think it's taking a step in the right
direction by having a -- I believe there's going to be a
retreat, if I'm not mistaken, out at -- out at your ranch, I
think, Commissioner Letz, and I really like to see that
happening. I like to see -- I would like to see that board
come together and be more focused; united, focused group, to
come together to -- to put all their efforts into increasing
the airport's use in the county and in the city.
And I think if -- if we'll all just work together
It
just seems to me year after year after year, we all agree that
it is our diamond in the rough, but it doesn't seem to --
doesn't seem to go anywhere after that. And this is not just
recently, this is many, many, many years. It doesn't seem to
-- I would like to see some sort of -- of analysis done by the
Airport Board to show, for example, in 1980, this was the
revenue generated and the taxing benefit of the airport, to
today. And -- and I don't know if you're going to see that
sort of growth like it should be. And don't know what the
reason is for it, but I would like to see that grow in the
economic development area.
3-5-07jwk
93
1
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: Councilman, let me follow up
on what you're saying. Certainly, we do have a community
purpose here -- unity purpose. If you look at the document
prepared by the City with respect to the contribution of the
City and the County in support of the airport, we're still
jointly funding the airport operations to the tune of almost
$400,000 a year. The goal which we've all expressed uniformly
is that we get the airport to the point where that doesn't
have to happen any more, which it seems sometimes we take a
step forward and we take a step backward, most recently being
the departure of B.A. Products. That doesn't seem all that
significant if you weigh it in the context of the airport, but
it is, because it is a blow to the budget, but more
importantly, it's a blow to the economic development of the
city and the county, because those are lost jobs. Forever
lost, until something happens to recreate them.
A couple things. You mentioned a master plan. We
have a master plan. What we're working to do and are going tc
approve probably at tomorrow's meeting is the business
development plan. And that, I believe, as you believe, needs
to work conjunctively with what we were talking about before,
and Judge Tinley, in our larger task force. We can't go off
half-cocked in terms of the business development plan for the
airport, to the exclusion of what it is we're trying to plan
on the long-term for economic development in the city and the
3-5 O~jwk
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
94
to convince the two consulting groups to really sit and work
together. Because, you're right, it is a jewel in the rough,
and it's not going to go anywhere independently. It's going
to go someplace, hopefully up, because we make it go that way,
and in conjunction with all of our other interests.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Wish I'd have said that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you could.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Would you read back the...
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have anything else to
add. I agree with everything that Todd said. I think there's
lots of -- an example of why we need both the economic plans
is -- just one issue I want to bring up, and that will be
it -- is taxing of aircraft. A couple years ago, the Airport
Board, we thought doing the right thing, really got -- you
know, through -- I think through City Council and
Commissioners Court going to -- aggressively going to tax
aircraft that should be taxed so we can get the revenue to the
airport that should be allocated to the airport. The
consequences of that was ticking off a bunch of aircraft
owners into sending aircraft from here to Llano to Burnett and
all over the place, that probably weren't being taxed here
anyway. And they weren't being taxed here, but we did -- but
3-5-07jwk
1
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
And I think that's one of the things you got to look
my opinion, the majority of use, but they're not taxed that
way, and they went to other airports because we were
threatening to tax them. And that was not a -- you know, I'm
not sure if it was a good or bad thing that we did there, but
I think we need to have a cohesive plan to really understand
that type of an approach before we go off and do something
again along those lines. And that's why I'm looking towards
both the -- both the economic development plan and the airport
business plan. I think they hopefully will be tied together.
I think they have -- you know, they would give us a good road
map to how to get more going on at the airport.
MR. GROSS: I think one of the key points the
Airport Board needs to keep in mind is, with an aircraft, 100
miles is nothing, and there needs to be a reason to stop here.
And there is no real reason to stop in Kerrville. I mean,
nice people; the weather's nice. That's fine. But as -- as a
former pilot, and I had an airplane out there -- it was $3,600
a year, by the way, just in case you want to know. If you're
looking for fuel and you're in Mooney, you're doing 200 miles
3-5 07jwk
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
an hour, you don't have to stop because you're at a half tank.
You can go another 100 miles, 200 more miles. If you're
looking for a hotel room, you have to stop in Kerrville and go
find one on the other side of town. You can go to E1 Paso,
and there's one right at the airport. If you're looking for
an instrument landing system and the weather's bad, you're not
coming to Kerrville; you're going to land in San Antonio. So,
I think there's some things there about the airport -- we have
a beautiful airport, beautiful facility, and approaches are
good. We need to make ourselves a little more attractive to
the folks who have an option. There's -- if you're flying
across country, I'm not stopping in Kerrville for lunch.
Really no place to go, other than the Burger Barn. Which I
happen to like, by the way. But -- but it's -- as a pilot,
there's no reason to stop in Kerrville. We need to work on
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Point well taken.
MR. COLEMAN: Mr. Chairman? I think, personally --
I'm going to throw out some unusual recommendations. I -- I
think, personally, we've had a lot of dissension problems with
the Airport Board. We're not a unified group working toward a
common goal for the last couple months. And I -- and I
attribute a lot of that to the difference in structure between
maybe the Commissioners Court versus City Council, but we
haven't been that unified group, without a doubt. And that
3 5-07jwk
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
19
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
97
feel like -- I feel like the previous 12 months, everybody had
worked very hard to try to achieve that, and then somehow, we
-- we lost it. And I think the meeting out at your ranch,
Jonathan, our work session, I hope will help us reattain that.
But I almost think, because of the difference in the
our whole approach. Maybe, rather than -- than trying to do
50/50 on the airport, because of the structural differences,
we can never get to where we have a good, strong unity. Maybe
we ought to explore the possibility of the City or the County
taking over the entire operation of the airport, and maybe it
could be done. I personally think -- and I'm not opposed to
either one taking it over if it will help overall. I
personally think the City's probably a little more geared
toward doing that, with its infrastructure for administration
and what-have-you and those services. It may be, as -- as a
part of that step, maybe the City also begins to take over the
library on a phased basis, like maybe over a four-year period,
25 percent each year, to relieve the County of that burden.
And -- and in that -- again, it's almost like the airport, to
Ii where you have to have more administrative support to -- to
take care of that. And maybe that would help both the City
and the County achieve their common goals for both of the --
both of the institutions. But I throw that out as something
3-5 07jwk
98
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
to think -- for us to think about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I think it's
good to talk about it. I -- I personally think that the setup
of the board, if we figure out how to operate -- how to use
that board, should work. And I think -- and I'm still
get	through.	I think	the --	I guess	one of	the	reasons
the	airport	by all --	is a -	- is it's	almost	a	regional
airport, or potentially regional airport. It's, you know,
granted, it's just in the county, but it certainly goes beyond
the city limits of Kerrville. And I think it's important if
we can -- if we can make the partnership work there, I think
it benefits the airport, as opposed to having one and two of
the other. I just think it's a -- it's very dissimilar to the
library, which is primarily used by the residents that live in
the city limits.
The airport is a -- is certainly county-wide,
city-wide, and regional-wide, potentially. A lot of people in
Comfort and Kendall County, Bandera County also use this
airport, so I think that it's very different. And I just -- I
think that we can figure out a mechanism to work -- to make
that Airport Board work properly, 'cause it is a separate
governmental entity, and it -- I don't -- and that's where we
have the difference. You mentioned a difference in
Commissioners Court and the City. Well, my view is that it's
3-5-07jw}:
1
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
city function; it's a separate entity. And one that is
another entity that I -- you know, that I thought of recently,
not dissimilar, is KPUB. KPUB was set up by the City
originally as kind of an entity, as I understand it. It's not
think the airport should be run, as a separate entity.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner, that's a good point.
And I think the fact that that Airport Board is a separate
entity is crucial. The government and management issues that
have occurred out there in recent months, years, I think have
been perceived at least as being detrimental to the
development out there, and I think that may have been acting
as a retarding force. But I think if we take it out of the
political arena and let the Airport Board manage the airport,
and let the Airport Board control that airport, we might be
surprised what occurs, just like occurs here at KPUB. And
one -- one way to achieve that, I see, is to have that be a
totally independent board, and not have members of either body
as active voting members of that board. Have that board in
charge of that airport, as it's contemplated to be under the
law. It would choose its own manager. It would contract for
and provide for its own services that it may need. As owners,
the City and the County would be obligated to provide the
funding for those operations. Lacking that, I suppose we
3-5-07jwk
100
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could rejuvenate that airport authority that we got
legislative authority and voter approval of, but never pulled
the trigger on. But I think a truly independent joint Airport
Board with an independent board would -- would be a wonderful
thing.
MR. COLEMAN: Judge, I --
JUDGE TINLEY: I think it'll solve the problem.
MR. COLEMAN: I would not be opposed to that,
either. I think everybody needs to realize that our expenses
on both sides would probably go up to achieve that. However,
that might be money very, very, very well spent in terms of
furthering economic development.
MR. BOCK: I think, Chuck, I agree with that too.
And I think what we're fixing to come out of these two
studies -- I have a feeling will point us directly in that
direction. I -- I think that some things you look at as a
business investment. It's not always about, let's see how
much, you know, we can save, but let's see what we can invest,
and what kind of return can we get on that.
MR. COLEMAN: What that will return.
MR. BOCK: Exactly. Exactly. I agree with that 100
percent. And I think what we're going to find out here real
soon is when these studies come together, it will show us, and
then I think it will also show us that -- that our airport may
be a bigger asset than we all think, and I think it'll give us
3-5-07jwk
101
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
some direction on how to go with that. But I think we do -- I
think we need to make our airport a -- a business conduit, and
just funnel the business and funnel expansion to its facility.
And -- and you've got to make it in a -- in an environment
which is conducive and friendly to business.
MR. COLEMAN: I agree with that 100 percent.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, in the context in
which you speak, on the Airport Board agenda tomorrow is a
proposal that we've worked out -- mayor and I have worked out,
along with Guy Overby, in which the scope of work for the
consultant who's going to do the business plan for the airport
will be expanded upon, and we're going to ask him to review
all documents by and under which the airport operates, which
starts with the governance agreements and goes all the way
down to the least of the leasing agreements or whatever. And
the consultant that we have chosen is one who has broad, broad
experience in the United States of America in terms of airport
operations, and so if we can compare all of our documents and
review them and come back with recommendations, that would be
welcome.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's part of the business plan that
TexDOT is funding that you're speaking of?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good. Good.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay. I haven't said anything, and
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
102
I'm also a member of that board
I thought that was very inappropriate. And -- but, anyway,
that was said. Also, there was accusations from the County
people that we bid things illegally, and the City is under one
code, the County's under one code, and the County Attorney
failed to do his homework very well, because he suggested
that -- he suggested that it was illegal for what we did.
Well, the section that he appointed -- that he mentioned
applied to county governments and not to city governments.
So, the City -- the City has been the operator and used the
Municipal Code that was applicable.
So, there -- I don't want to start an argument,
but -- all over again, but I think we'll be able to resolve
these things. But this business plan should go in, and I
wouldn't be a bit surprised if the business plan would suggest
that one person or the other take over the operation of the
airport, because you have different rules that apply -- that
are state laws that apply to counties; you have different
rules that are state laws that apply to cities. And if you
have a joint thing happening here, I don't see how we can --
you know, unless there's more compromise between the people, I
3-5-07jwk
103
1
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 know where we're going to go.
MR. MEEK: The mayor makes a real good point here.
And I was sitting here sketching some things out. We're
involved in a number of things; library, EMS, airport,
dispatch might be in there somewhere, Animal Control. I think
this body ought to look at, is one entity or the other better
suited? And perhaps we divide these up. You know, one
possible way of dividing these up would be City take the
library and EMS; we have the EMS now. The County look at
taking the airport, dispatch, Animal Control. Just throwing
this up in the air, guys. But you would -- you wouldn't be
having the territorial differences. If we -- if we can some
way figure out how to divide these up instead of having so
many joint operations.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that makes sense.
MAYOR SMITH: I agree with that, too. And going
back to the -- to the taxes on aircraft, the City -- the
Airport Manager got blamed for that. I was the guy that said
that, because we had a Challenger and everybody was saying,
"Well, we're going to get all this new revenue, ad valorem tax
revenue." I said, "Well, how much do they pay?" They weren't
paying. They weren't on the tax rolls. So -- so, the Airport
Manager got the tail numbers of some of these aircraft and
gave it to the proper authority that -- that appraises
aircraft. And -- and if a private -- a private plane is not
3-5 07jwk
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
104
taxed, but a corporate aircraft is taxed. And a lot of the
corporate aircraft left our airfield and flew somewhere else,
and to me, that was a violation of the -- the tax laws of the
Well, with all due respect to both
parties, I think one of the problems with the Airport Board --
I don't attend because of the Open Meetings Act, but I do
listen to the tapes, and it's an outstanding entertainment
source. (Laughter.) Cheaper than Hastings. But I think part
of the problem is -- and please don't be offended. I think
the mayor said the City has certain ideas of what ought to be
done with the airport, and the County has certain ideas, but
neither party has much ground in aviation. Some of the things
that you've done out there, although well-intended, made --
make no sense in the context of how an airport really works.
And I think we are about to experience a revolution in air
transportation with the very light jets, the taxi-on-demands
or charter-on-demand. Could be a huge thing for Kerrville,
because you can avoid all the crowded approaches of San
Antonio.
I think we're -- one of the things that needs to be
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
105
aggressively is to protect the approaches. I happen to live
at the end of an approach to Runway 12, and a lot of airplanes
go over my house. But I'm a pilot, and I sort of expect
airplanes to fly the approach. I don't expect them to avoid
my house. But we're going to have more and more development
out there, and we need to have those approaches protected,
'cause one of these days, somebody from Comanche Trace is
going to say to you, "How come all these planes are flying
over my house? We got to do something about it." We can
really choke our airport to death. So, I think we need to --
if we're going to have a consultant, let's get one that
understands aviation, and let's listen to him or her, and --
and this diamond in rough won't be so rough.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Question. It's really either to
Mike Hayes or to Rex. Two people have said that people can't
attend -- that other councilmen cannot attend that meeting
because of violation of Open Meetings Act. It being a
separate entity, and if you y'all sit there and don't
participate, I don't see why y'all can't attend. Am I wrong
on how I read the --
MR. MEEK: You can post it and we can attend.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think -- I think that probably
arises from -- I think Buster was just an interested listener
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
106
at a meeting down at City Council on one occasion, and someone
and -- and having been asked a question, I think he very
briefly responded, and somebody got all bent out of shape and
took him to task for violating the Open Meetings Act, because
there were two other commissioners present at the time. So,
you can stretch those things to absurdity, but I think that's
the precautionary mind-set that's been put into place. You
know, there's some of those meetings that I'd like to attend
too, and to just kind of get a better understanding, but you
run that risk, and you just decide, I don't want to face the
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
MAYOR SMITH: I didn't answer your question about
ss plan. Bill and I were on the committee that
plan. They're probably the best entity in the United States
evaluating airport business plans. They were head and
shoulders above the other people that bid on it, so we will
have experts working on our business plan. And the Judge is
right; we have too much politics in the Airport Board. And
the -- the four county -- well, there's two county and two
city; none of them are airport -- are airplane owners or
pilots or anything like that. So, we have -- we have four
3 5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
107
an airport should be run. They're -- so maybe you're right.
Maybe -- maybe we have the wrong makeup of an airport board.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I don't like
I kind of what the Judge said of having a totally independent
board, or reduce to it one and one, possibly, to get a
minority, as opposed to a majority, coming from the entities.
But I think it's very important that you keep non-aviation
people also on that board. I don't care if they're city --
where they come from. If that's -- I mean, I think you risk a
greater problem if you have only airplane owners on that
board. I think you need to have community as well, all
facets.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. Operation of an airport is a
imply that only aviation people were qualified for the board.
My whole point was to make that board totally independent
of -- of political control. Now, reducing to one and one, if
you have any representation, my thinking is they ought to be
ex-officio -- not sure I even like that too well -- for a
truly independent board that's looking after one operation,
and that's the airport. Who hires that manager; that
manager's responsible to that board. And as owners, the City
and the County would be responsible for the funding mechanism,
as we are	already.	And absent	that, you -	- you	create the
authority	and give	it the power	to impose	a tax,	which
3-5-07jwk
1
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
authorities do. I assume they still do under state law.
Haven't checked recently; I know they used to.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's what was intended
originally when the authority issue was passed years ago. The
only problem with that was the board was never populated, and
secondly, we didn't have a companion bill to give that board
taxing authority.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So it foundered, if you
will, from the beginning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What y'all are talking about
here is eliminating a good opportunity for a good fight, and I
don't know if I agree with all that or not. (Laughter.) But
some of it made sense. Some of it's crazy. But my question
is, the TexDOT study and your study, you keep talking about
bringing them together and dovetailing them. How are you
communicating? How are the two studies going to communicate
to see that you're basically riding the same horse?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, I'm not sure. I'm not
-- I'd like to take a shot at answering your question, because
the mayor and I have sort of a disagreement about that issue.
The way -- when -- when it was -- go back to the task force
and the big study. When it was approved and decided to go
ahead, and -- and got EIC funding in the conduit and all that
3-5-O~jwk
109
1
2
3
9
5
6
7
B
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
29
25
good stuff, then we did our second one, which was the airport
development plan. At that point, it was suggested that
perhaps we delay the start of the airport development plan by
maybe 30 to 60 days, 30 days particularly, so that the other
one could get up and going, and the two consultants could have
the opportunity to sort of work together. And we brought that
issue back to the Airport Board at the same time we talked
about expanding the scope of work. So, the mayor and I worked
out the -- the language on expanding the scope of work. He
expressed his preference being we move the plan forward
immediately. The board hasn't weighed in on that, but it will
weigh in on it tomorrow. Personally, I think it makes a
little sense to have that one delayed by just 30 days, and let
the other bigger plan -- the other weigh in, and the two
consultants get their heads together and figure out how
they're going to integrate these issues. But --
MR. COLEMAN: I agree with that. The airport plan
will need to utilize the information that TXP's coming up
with, and vice-versa. I mean, they're going to impact one
another. They all have to be like a clock -- wheel of a
clock.
JUDGE TINLEY: The probable provider for the
comprehensive study is already on notice that this other is in
the works, the airport business plan, and that there will need
-- necessarily need to be coordination with that, so that end
3-s-o~~wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
110
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: TexDOT is not unwilling to
delay the start. We talked to them about it -- Guy Overby and
I both talked to the TexDOT people who handle the grants and
all this other good stuff, and they are not unwilling to delay
the start. They're looking now back from us for the scope of
they would be just as happy to delay the start to coincide
with the other. That's fine.
MAYOR SMITH: Of course, Bill and I disagree about
of -- of what the overall study is, but this study would be
added onto -- to the -- the overall study of the area. But
you'	re doing	-- you	're making	a study on one	specific	part of
the	overall	county	operation,	and I think --	and the	-- the
outfit that -- as I understand it, the outfit that's doing the
overall study has admitted that they have no expertise in
airport management, so I don't -- I don't see that -- I'd like
to see the airport business plan done as an airport business
plan; then that plan can be integrated into the overall thing.
But I don't think that the airport plan should be under the --
3-5-07jwk
111
1
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 overall committee evaluating the whole city. So, I think
the Airport Board voted the last time that it would be handled
independently.
MR. COLEMAN: I agree with that, too, 100 percent.
My comment a while ago goes to TXP developing a lot of
demographic growth and economic development growth that the
airport study would need to be able to provide for within
their study.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah.
MR. COLEMAN: Or use the parameters.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm confused as to how -- going
back to kind of what Todd said early on, if the biggest
economic generator for the city and county is the airport, and
the airport plan's being done not by the people doing the
economic development plan, how are they going to -- I mean,
what if one plan comes up with saying, you know, the airport
plan says that you go down A, B, C as to how you get the
airport moving. And the other plan changes -- says, no,
that's not what you need to be doing? I mean, they have to
be --
MR. BOCK: The economic plan will offer suggested
incentives to help that airport operations plan. The airport
plan will -- will come down to an operations type of
structure. And the TXP, the develop -- economic development
plan will offer -- will be able to offer that plan the type of
3-5-07jwk
112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
incentives and the type of help -- you can have a plan without
the incentives. We're hoping to put an incentive package
together, sort of like Chuck has said before, tools in a tool
chest, and hand that airport the tools in the tool chest in
order to make that process more efficient, or -- or some
criteria.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're talk -- so the airport
is not going to talk about the incentives or any kind of
development of the airport? We're going to leave that to the
other plan, airport business plan?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We don't know,
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But, I mean, I'm -- I see
getting two sets of rules, two sets of answers. If they don't
-- if they're not pretty closely meshed to know what the other
one's working on, I don't see --
MR. COLEMAN: They've got to coordinate.
MR. BOCK: Well, they have to --
~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the mayor said the vote was
to have an independent.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, they're going to make their --
the business plan is going to be done by people that are
experts on business plans for airports.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But not economic development.
MR. COLEMAN: Jonathan, at one point there was
discussion about having TXP do both of them. I think that's
3-5-07jw}:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
113
where maybe some of the confusion is coming in. The decision
was later made, I guess, that, no, we needed an expert
aviation-type consultant to do the airport. And TXP strictly
did economic development.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No auestion. that'a what
we've done.
MR. COLEMAN: Which is very good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The only issue here is the
delaying the start of the airport business development plan by
30 days or so.
MR. COLEMAN: To allow the coordination.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So that they can work
together a little more cohesively. It's not a question of
whether one's going to do the other or what. We're taking two
separate consulting groups, two separate tasks and scopes of i
work, and asking them to work together, one to delay 30 days.
MAYOR SMITH: Why delay one if they're going to work
independently? That's what -- that's the dumbest thing I've
ever heard.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MAYOR SMITH; Somebody say --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a good example of what`s
happened at the Airport Board.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's an Airport Board issue,
Mr. Mayor, and I'm going to leave that to them.
3-s o~~wH
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
l~
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
114
MAYOR SMITH: Well, Bill doesn't like the way the
airport's being run, so you can take everything he says under
that context.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You like everything the airport
I does?
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay --
MAYOR SMITH: Not -- no, I didn't say that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. Mayor, you said he
doesn't like anything, so you like everything.
(Several people speaking at once.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Hold it, I got a reporter here.
Okay. Have we -- have we whipped that dead horse? Okay. Are
we ready to go to the next item, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, I think so.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay, Item 7, joint and/or cooperative
efforts of law enforcement in dealing with and handling mental
health cases. And I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Which one of you guys wants to run
with this ball?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: You put on it the agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, I see.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I don't mind saying -- are you
going to extend it to your -- your agenda item's a little bit
broader than his. But -- but as far as if we stay with the ~
3-5-O~jwk
1
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
don't see any problems with us. I would ask that,
individually, the Commissioners Court and the City Council --
and I think the Chief will join me in this, is that y'all help
us by -- through state means, legislative means, whatever it
is, to get local beds for local people. There's no sense in
us having to take people all the way to Lubbock, and Lubbock
having to bring them people all the way here, depending on
which one has beds open. They need to reserve some beds
locally so that it doesn't drain our law enforcement. We're
not big cities like Dallas or Houston or San Antonio, and it
kills us on our local law enforcement to have to send an
officer all the way to Lubbock, both of us.
MR. YOUNG: Right. And that's what we really need
from both Council and Commissioners, some support, that when
we -- if we do take this to either Harvey Hilderbran or to
Lamar Smith or to the Legislature, that we have some support
from our local governments that we need to do this. From
September of 'OS through -- to the end of last month, the
combination of the county and the police department, we did 73
transports to remote locations, and that could have been San
Antonio, Austin, Lubbock, Big Spring, wherever the case may
be. If our state hospital goes on diversion and we have a
3-5-07~wk
116
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
mental health patient, once the emergency detention order is
issued, and it's issued either through the Sheriff's Office or
the police department, we're obligated to take that individual
across the state, but that's what it's developed into.
We do have some local acute care beds here, but
obviously, we don't have enough. And I think Harvey
Hilderbran has got some legislation out there that will
increase that, but we're not sure if it's increasing it by the
number that`s in the deal, or if it's just maintaining those
numbers that we have. We're not the only ones having these
problems, but most of the rural counties have these problems.
Hildago County, other counties are really having some issues.
There may be a time that we have to transport them to El Paso.
That's 503 miles one way, and you lose -- you lose a deputy
and you lose a local law enforcement officer, use of a car,
the cost of taking them up there. You need to feed them if
you're en route, and you need to make sure that you stop en
route to make sure that they use the restroom or things of
that nature. And the liability issues that you put in -- you
put on the table, I think, are just too great.
I don't know what the answer is, whether it's
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
117
disconnect between what happens with M.H.M.R. and what's
~ available by the State Hospital. So, we need some support,
i that when we write these letters to the -- to the legislators
and they start asking questions, that I think there's some
support from local -- local government. I think what it costs
is about $1,000 round-trip in just overtime usage to take
somebody to Lubbock and back. Plus you -- you just lose the
bodies. You lose the people for that -- that distance of
time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: The 15 beds here that they have
now, acute beds, are actually serving the 22-county cachement
area at Kerrville State Hospital. And it just -- every time
we have one ready, you know, some other county already brought
one, and now we're having to be diverted somewhere else. And
it is -- it's really taxing on our ]aw enforcement, 'cause you
i can't do it with just one. Because you already -- you are
dealing with mental cases; they have to be treated
differently, because technically they're not criminals.
They're not under arrest. Whether you can even handcuff them
when you transport them is an issue. You know, you're --
you're not -- all our officers on both sides are -- are
trained in dealing with mental people, but we are not mental
caregivers. We're law enforcement officers. And having to
take these people this far is really hurting our law
enforcement efforts in this county, and city.
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
118
MR. YOUNG: It stretches us rather thin, for the
most part. Like I said, we did -- we did 73 outside. But
Kerrville alone did 121 transports to K.S.H. from September of
'05 through February of '07, so those were ones that we picked
up at local mental health facilities over here and just took
them up to the State Hospital. So, there's a lot of time
utilized to do that.
MR. MEEK: Would our first step be to talk to --
Stephen Anfinson, I think? Is he the local manager here at
the M.H.M.R.? Would that be our first step in --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That is superintendent of the
State Hospital.
MR. YOUNG: He's at the State Hospital.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Superintendent at the State
Hospital. And then the -- the head of M.H.M.R. here, and I
don't know if they can -- if they can do it. But there's got I
to be some way to keep some beds local]y here so that we don't
have to transport these people all over the state. We don't
I have --
MR. YOUNG: One of the things we found, too, because
I we're located 62 miles from San Antonio, we have a lot of
people come here for mental health care, and they stay here.
And then they -- we have issues with them, and they're back
and forth and they're in and out of the State Hospital. I
think that's one of the reasons we deal with so many -- so
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
119
they have to get an emergency detention. But there's plenty
of facilities available in those areas, where we don't. But,
you know, Lubbock, E1 Paso, Rusk, you know, that's -- that's
an overtime issue; that`s a vehicle issue. That's a lot of
time.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think what we're saying
overall is that, unfortunately, Kerr County, City of
Kerrville, all of us have gotten kind of behind the ball on
mental health issues. None of us really looked at it, and
it's whether the ones that are out on the street there are
going to end up sleeping in the bushes, behind the curbs, like
you see in Washington and Dallas and that, or whether it's --
such as there's a law that says I shou]dn't keep them in the
jail once they've been found mentally incompetent. I have
about four or five in jail right now that we're dealing with
throwing urine, throwing feces, that are mentally incompetent,
and been found mentally incompetent, but to get them in even a
forensic unit, which Kerrville turned into, is a six-month
waiting period from the time the papers are ready. So, you're
talking six months for them to be found mentally incompetent,
3-5-67jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
22
22
23
24
25
120
and then another six months to get them in, and the jail
staff's having to deal with this for a year before we can get
them out of this facility, and I think it's becoming a very
serious issue for Kerrville and Kerr County.
MAYOR SMITH: Did the change in the attitude -- or
the type of patients they have at the State Hospital cause
this problem?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yes. They started taking just
forensics, which I understand. Just -- like I say, it's
taking six months to get them out of there just into a
forensic unit. But when they did that locally, it in essence
killed us being able to treat just the mental health patients
that are not criminals, but need to have some inpatient
services. If you can't get them locally, you're going to have
to take them to Lubbock, and in a police car.
MAYOR SMITH: So, when they started taking the
forensic cases in, you lost -- you lost beds for -- for people
that you have to haul elsewhere?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For a while, you lost more than
beds; you lost the entire State Hospital.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Mayor?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: They opened up 15 beds
temporarily.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me give you the history on this
thing. Prior to January 'O5, Kerrville State Hospital had 43
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
121
civil commitment acute care beds. The remainder of them --
Immediately prior to
commitments, forensic commitments, that caused there to be a
good deal of pressure to increase the number of forensic beds
in the state.
In January of '05, summarily, all of the beds at
Kerrville State Hospital were reclassified as forensic beds.
i Community M.H.M.R. Center, who handles the outpatient and a
lot of the transitional to the inpatient, they got -- they put
their heads together for an interim solution, and we got,
depending on who you listen to, either 12 or 16 beds out at
Kerrville State Hospital. Well, that's significantly less
than what we had, but we've been getting by as best we could
on those. But frequently, those beds are full; as a
consequence, they're having to transport these people that are
on emergency detention to the next available facility. Even
if -- even if we're not full, and somebody comes in from the
cachement area, they call it, the -- I think it's a 19- or
20-county area that -- that Kerrville State Hospital
comprises, they're as entitled to those beds, as well as
overflow from other hospitals that are full. Lubbock, for
3-5-07jwk
122
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
example, they'll send theirs down here if there's a bed
available in our system.
Now, the immediate solution before us in this
Hospital. Initially, it would be activated for 16 beds, I
believe. That's all they're talking about now. You -- you
get a half a loaf at a time when you go to the Legislature, as
you know. I've been to Austin on two or
to testify for the benefit of that bill.
hopefully new stand-alone facility, it w
capacity of approximately 40 in that one
we'll be able to use that. The pressure
three occasions now
But once we get this
ill have the ultimate
unit, and hopefully
for the forensic
beds, the criminal commitments, the lawbreakers and the
ne'er-do-wells, they're getting all the beds. The law-abiding
citizens are losing their beds. And I don't think it's
because mental health is declining in the state of Texas.
It's the federal courts that have done this, ultimately, I
think.
But the -- the immediate solution is to try and get
support for House Bill 654 and the funding that needs to go
with that. In order to get a more permanent solution for our
acute care civil commitment beds, they're actually -- they're
3 5-07jwk
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
calling it a crisis stabilization center. There's some
connotation that that's more short-term than psychiatric
inpatient -- civil psychiatric inpatient.
MR. HOFMANN: What's the status of that pending
legislation?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's in committee. And I testified
on it -- I believe it was last week, last week or week before.
MR. MEEK: Is there time to get support, something
from the City?
JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. I'd
recommend you contact Representative Hilderbran's office and
get all the information on it.
MR. HOFMANN: Yeah. If the timing works, we can get
a resolution of support on the Council's next meeting, which
is a week from tomorrow. And -- but we'll coordinate with
Representative Hilderbran's office just to make sure of what
they need. And if that works, we can certainly do that,
Councilman.
MR. COLEMAN: And, Judge, once a patient goes into
that stabilization bed --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm?
MR. COLEMAN: -- is that a State-borne cost at that
point?
JUDGE TINLEY: It's a tricky formula, because
there's an allocation of those costs. They have what they
3 5-O~jwk
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
call trust funds that are transferred back and forth from the
State Hospital to the community Mental Health Authority. It's
mainly moving from one pocket to the other, in large measure,
so I -- so it's been indicated to me. Now, there are going to
be some additional costs up front to ready that facility, but
certainly it'll be less cost than to build, you know, on bare
dirt, additional beds, because we've got the facility there.
The County has -- has agreed to help with some infrastructure
that's going to necessitate in order to get that facility up
and running. But it's really, really important that we get a
more permanent solution to what we got now, because --
MR. COLEMAN: I agree.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- the pressure for more forensic
beds -- I think the number that I saw week before last, for
current needs, 731, and -- and they project the need for
800-plus. Well, guess what? They're fixing to take away our
16 that we've got on an interim basis. That's coming. So, we
just got a part of a temporary solution, but we need a more
permanent solution.
MR. BOCK: Judge, if --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if we weighed in on
I
it as Commissioners Court in favor of that legislation --
JUDGE TINLEY: If I'm not mistaken, we've already
passed a resolution on it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I don't recall.
3-5 07jw4:
125
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm almost positive that we have.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: And I recommend that once you
do that and you get a document of some sort, that you find
out -- and I think Harvey will tell you the same thing; you
find out what committee that bill is in, and -- and they'll
they, each and every one of them, get a copy of your concern.
That's the way it works.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's one other issue that
really does affect the citizens, too. You take -- take a
person that we have to transport all the way to Lubbock, and
for his loved one that cares about him or anything else to see
him, now he's not even out here at the local state hospital
where they could help deal with the doctors and everybody
else. They're going to have to qo to Lubbock too, and so it's
a -- it just kind of snowballs and becomes a very large
problem real quick for all of us.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You know, this issue that
we're talkinq about today is just a part of the problem, too.
One of the biggest problems statewide for county government is
these type of folks that are filling up our jails. They're
not our -- the way I see it, and the way county government
sees it, they're not our patients. They're the State's
patients. And the short-term thing is simply a short-term
thing. They need to build a large hospital or 100 large
3 5-07jwk
126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hospitals or something, and get those people out of our damn
jails. They are costing a lot of money, and they do not
belong in there. They're mental health people; they're not
jail people. But that's -- and, see, that's a difference in
what we're talking about. This is an issue for Dallas and
Fort Worth and Houston, and all of us county-wide -- counties.
It's an issue for everyone, it doesn't matter what size. It
is very, very expensive. And that's -- that little war's
being fought in Austin.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: A lot of those areas also have,
like, Parkland Hospital or Brackenridge in Austin, where they
have the regular hospitals that have full wings to treat
these. You know, we don't have anything other than Kerrville
State Hospital. And if you don't have the beds there, you're
going to haul.
MR. YOUNG: Often, I think they only hold them for
24 hours for initial evaluation; then they can get a family
member to come pick them up or whatever they need to do. We
don't have that luxury.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Put them on a treatment plan.
MR. YOUNG: Right.
MR. BOCK: Sheriff, I got a question for you and the
Chief. You -- you had -- when we started talking about this
agenda item, you had indicated that you and the Chief have
3-5 07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
127
gotten together and	worked	out a	plan for	the	transportation
of mental health.	Is -- is	that	in some	sort	of a policy
plan? Or would you like that policy adopted by the governing
bodies here, or a gentlemen's agreement?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Well, I think it's always been
officer, and we rotate cars. And it has worked out, 'cause at
times there are things going on; City may have something major
going on and cannot, and we have the leeway to do it. But
it's -- it's a gentleman's agreement that normally, yes, we
are going to stand by our agreement. And there was a little
hiccough in it, but that's been resolved. That's what our
meeting was	over.	And	I	am very comfortable that	we	don't
need the --	either	one	of	the governing bodies to	get	involved
in how we work that out. We just need y'all to get involved
in helping us get --
MR. YOUNG: Helping us on the other side.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Solve it.
MR. MEEK: While y'all are standing up and getting
along so well, how about a little update on the dispatch?
JUDGE TINLEY: Good planning.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There hasn't been any meeting
called. And I don't know if we can talk about that yet in
this agenda item, unless the Judge calls his agenda item, as
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
128
far as --
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got Item 3, which includes
"and/or other joint city and county law enforcement issues."
If -- if dispatch falls under law enforcement issues, we're
okay.
MR. EMERSON: I think the problem you have, Judge,
is the Sheriff can talk about it, but it's not on the City's
agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, I posted it as a joint agenda, as
did the City. We both posted a joint agenda.
MR. EMERSON: The top one?
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. EMERSON: Or did the City post the second one?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Can I have the Chief as my
guest to talk about it?
MR. EMERSON: Sheriff can talk about it all he wants
to. It's Mike's problem on the City side.
MR. HAYES: Yeah, go ahead and give the report. I
think that's okay. But --
MAYOR SMITH: Didn't all the Council members get the
Judge's --
JUDGE TINLEY: Agenda.
MAYOR SMITH: -- agenda item?
MR. GROSS: I'm sure we must have.
MR. EMERSON: Go for it.
3-5-07jwk
129
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Do you want me to say anything?
JUDGE TINLEY: Tell us what you know.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Number one, we have not had any
committee meeting, as the two entities have agreed to have,
and I think that the Chief would agree with me, you know, we
can have those. There are some -- some audio tapes of 911
calls in the past that I think that committee ought to be
aware of on how the two work together. I think if we can all
throw politics out the window and work together, I think it
it would be great. But, personally, I think you're going to have
to have a separate location. You know, I've always had an
opinion -- and City Council don't like this -- that the County
has 17 acres here where we got dispatch in one area, and we
have law enforcement winged out this way and the jail winged
out to the back. And the City's had some issues about when
their police department's outgrowing its current area and
location. Plenty of room. I think the police department
could be totally separate, can wing out the other way, so you
have a joint law enforcement center. You got the jail local,
you got your warrants local, and even though it's in one large
area, the dispatch is different, but common. Because in my 27
years here, the key to effective law enforcement is getting
the street officers visiting, talking, just passing on
information. There's not a crook in the world that cares
about city limit signs or county signs. If you can have
3 5-O~jwk
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
everybody separate, but yet to where we can share things, I
think you'll come up, but that's my opinion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Rusty, that makes so much
sense, it probably won't happen.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's right. You're probably
~ right.
MR. MEEK: Were you talking about just dispatch,
I or --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No, I'm talking about the
whole -- all of your law enforcement area,
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to say that the -- I
think at our next meeting -- our next Commissioners Court
meeting, that the Commissioners are going to appoint our side
of the committee to get that thing going, to get it rocking
and rolling. Are we about through? Can I -- I've got a --
JUDGE TINLEY: Go ahead.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got an announcement to
make. Some of you know that our association, the
Commissioners Court association that we belong to is the West
Texas County Judges and Commissioners Association, and we will
have -- we will be hosting the annual conference at the end of
this month. Mayor Smith is jointly going to participate with
us, the welcome from the City of Kerrville. And they're going
to be here approximately four days, and that association
consists of 118 counties. Very large. And could have 118
3-5-O~jwk
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
25
commissioners courts and their families here in Kerrville at
one time, and we'll be close to that. So -- and one of the
functions that we will have during that week, we'll be going
out to the Star -- what do you call that thing?
MR. BOCK: River Star?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: River Star up at the Ag Barn.
And the host court, our court, will be throwing a little party
i for everybody, and we wanted to invite the City Council to
come and be a part of that. Bruce is cooking catfish for us,
and have some refreshments along with that. And -- but please
consider this an invitation for that evening. And I think --
22nd?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 21st.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: 21st of that -- March 21st of
that week. And we'll be out there about 6:30, and we'll have
a little entertainment and catfish and et cetera and so forth.
And you're welcome to come out to the Y.O. Hotel and hop on a
bus and be transported out there, if you drink too much. If
you don't, you drive.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know it will be fun, because
Buster's president.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm the president.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, thank you.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm looking forward to the
end of March when I'm not president.
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
132
MAYOR SMITH: It's a great honor for your
organization to meet in our city, our county.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: A great honor for the city to
have our organization, you're exactly right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe there's going to be
about 750 people in Kerrville that week.
MAYOR SMITH: That's great.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That are not normally here.
MR. COLEMAN: You got that much fish lined out?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One caveat, Commissioner.
Typically, at the end of a session, the Texas Association of
Counties' attorney gives a really good summary of what's going
on in the Legislature.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And ~f you guys want to
listen to it and hear his perspective on what's going on,
what's good, what's bad, what's indifferent, it will be a good
session just to look in on.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Also work in agreement with
Municipal League.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They do. He covers -- in his
talks, he covers specifically county government, but he gets
over into the city stuff as well, so it's very, very
interesting. He's a bright guy. Y'all are welcome to that as
3-5-07jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
133
well. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Mayor, we got else anything else
today?
MAYOR SMITH: No, I think that's all from our side.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be adjourned.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
(Joint City/County workshop adjourned at 11:36 a.m.)
I 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 9th day of
March, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY: ~ _`~K__- ____ ___ ___ _
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
3-5-07jwY.