1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
and
KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
Joint Workshop
Monday, August 6, 2007
8:00 a.m.
Kerrville Public Utility Meeting Room
2250 Memorial Boulevard
Kerrville, Texas
Kerr County Commissioners Court:
PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
Kerrville City Council:
PRESENT: EUGENE C. SMITH, Mayor
TODD A. BOCK, Mayor Pro Tem
MACK HAMILTON, Councilperson, Place 2
T. SCOTT GROSS, Councilperson, Place 3
CHUCK COLEMAN, Councilperson, Place 4
PAUL HOFMANN, City Manager
3
O
~.9
a0
2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I N D E X
August 6, 2007
PAGE
1.1 Presentation and discussion with City Council	
and City staff with respect to operation and/or	
funding of joint City and County projects, including,	
but not limited to:	
EMS	3
Fire Department	9
Library	30
Airport	43
Recycling Center	59
Animal Control	63
1.2 Discussion and consideration of other potential	
cooperative efforts, including, but not limited to:	
Health Benefits Program	71
Road repair/rehabilitation/sealcoating	74
Emergency Services Dispatch	77
Airport Governance	--
Broadband services	81
--- Adjourned 106
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Monday, August 6, 2007, at 8:00 a.m., a joint
workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and Kerrville
City Council was held at the Kerrville Public Utility Meeting
Room, 2250 Memorial Boulevard, Kerrville, Texas, and the
following proceedings were had:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen.
Let me call to order this joint meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court and Kerrville City Council. It's a joint
workshop to discuss various joint projects scheduled and
posted for this time and date, Monday, August 6th, 2007, at
8 a.m., here at the KPUB Board meeting room. Mr. Mayor, do
you want to go ahead and call your agenda?
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, I want to call to order the
Kerrville City Council at a joint budget meeting with Kerr
County, at -- well, it's 8:15 a.m. on August 6th. We're now
in order.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the agendas are somewhat
similar. Discussion between the two bodies with respect to
operation and/or funding of joint City/County projects,
including, but not limited to, EMS, Fire Department, Library,
Recycling Center, Animal Control, and Airport. I've listed
EMS first. If you've got no objection, that's as good a place
as any to start, isn't it, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SMITH: Good place to start. Paul, do you
8-6-07 jwk
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
want to start that presentation on the behalf of the City?
MR. HOFMANN: Sure. Certainly, if that's okay. I
don't have a lot to update. Commissioners and Mayor and
Council, you recall from our last retreat that was in March,
Chief Holloway and Eric Maloney talked you through how we
would be approaching our recommended cost allocation for
Fiscal 2007. At that meeting -- I think actually at the
meeting before that, there was some discussion about the idea
of increasing the EMS rates. We have built a budget that
follows the recommendations from both bodies about increasing
the rates, and the City's Fiscal '07 budget assumes that. We
took the very same approach to suggesting a cost allocation
between the County and the City as we took for Fiscal '07, and
we're happy to answer any questions you have about the
recommended base budget for EMS operations, what that rate
increase is all about, what the additional revenues are all
about. Judge Tinley, there was a slight error in the
July 13th letter that I sent to you, but not in what we are
suggesting is the allocation for Fiscal '08. The Fiscal '08
allocation that we have included in our budget is $220,335,
and Mayor and Councilmen, that's what the budget I recommended
to you assumes. And, so, if there's any questions, we're
happy to try to answer.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think every member of the Court has
a copy of that July 13th letter from the City Manager, don't
8-6-07 jwk
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir.
MR. HOFMANN: The rate -- the amount of contribution
actually went down a bit, and that's primarily because of the
rate increase.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the status of bad
debt collections this year versus a year ago when we discussed
this?
MR. HOFMANN: Chief, can -- Mark or Eric --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Eric's out of here. Let me try to
get over here. Our bad debt collection is a little better
than it was this time last year. Unfortunately, the numbers
are larger, because -- and we project the numbers will be
larger with the rate increase, but we don't know; we don't
have a history on that yet, based on, you know, what we're
proposing the new increase to the rates will be. But with --
as far as our -- the company that we contract for bad debt,
they're -- they're doing a pretty good job for us right now.
I can't give you a percentage on that based on what the
proposed rates will be.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much will the new rates
bring in new revenue? How much new revenue?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, we're estimating it's going to
increase by about $75,000.
8-6-07 jwk
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How much have the new rates
JUDGE TINLEY: He didn't hear you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You didn't hear me?
MR. HOLLOWAY: No, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How much are your new rates --
how much have they increased over the ones that you had
originally, prior year?
MR. HOLLOWAY: I don't have that figure with me
right now. They've	gone	up --	100 percent of	what the
Medicare	will allow,	and	that	-- that varies	on different
ones. And, actually, our -- our B.L.S. charge went down a
little bit, but A L.S. went up. Our mileage has gone up from
$9 to, I think, $12 a mile.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was any effort made to try and
determine the population in the areas that -- there's one area
that's been carved out in far northwest Kerr in the Y.O. area.
The primary response is going to Junction, and there's an
arrangement -- I don't -- has it been finalized yet, Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're still working on it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eric and I are going through
another final draft version on the Comfort area. And it's --
the -- Kendall County wants the City of Kerrville to be a
8-6-07 jwk
7
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
party to the agreement, and originally City of Kerrville
didn't want to be part of the agreement. They felt they
worked with the County; the County worked with Kendall County,
and we're going through that to see -- you know, and I think
the recommendation that Eric and I are probably -- talked to
the Chief about it. It'll probably come back to the City of
Kerrville. The City will be a party to it from the standpoint
of protocol more than from the standpoint of the agreement, as
to -- it -- you know, it's hard to separate it all. Kendall
County has one point of view; we had a different point of
view, and it seemed easier to go to their -- it didn't seem to
hurt anything, in my mind, to go to -- Kendall County wanted
to have all three entities to sign the agreement. But I don't
think that's gotten back to the -- you know, draft version
back to the Chief or to Mike Hayes yet.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my question relates to the
population figures. I think these allocations are based
primarily on population. And --
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, the area in west Kerr County,
we don't -- we're not including that in the estimate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And -- Eric? When we -- Falling
Waters is still in the population that we're projecting in
this?
25 I MR. MALONEY: Yes.
8-6-07 jwk
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLLOWAY: We haven't taken those out yet,
because it's still part of Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And that -- what, about 100 people in
I that area?
MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. And we still have the
capacity to respond to an emergency.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, plus we still will respond,
because Kendall County -- you know, Comfort only has one
ambulance, and if they're on another call, we will have to
still respond to that area, and that's another reason we
didn't take those numbers out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Because chances are that we'll be
responding out there at least half the time.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But there was an adjustment
for population in the Y.O. area?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, that's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good. Thank you. Anything
else on that particular item? I think that may be -- what, is
that the one good news item, Paul?
MR. HOFMANN: No. No, sir, there's good news all
over this agenda.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, one further question,
8-6-07 jwk
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Judge.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paul, did you say that our
contribution is going down?
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
MR. HOLLOWAY: It went from 230 this year to 220
~ next year.
MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Williams, there's a typo in that
July 13th memo.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the one you're
referring to, where it says that it's increasing?
MR. HOFMANN: The '07 contribution is misstated.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: The '07 contribution is about 235,
right? 231?
JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds about right. Okay. Are we
down to Fire?
MAYOR SMITH: Fire is right next. Paul, do you want
to keep Raymond up on the floor there for this?
MR. HOFMANN: Sure. We didn't change the formula.
We didn't change the allocation formula that we've been
talking with the County Commissioners about for quite a while
now. According to that formula -- and we can talk about that
if we need to -- the actual County contribution would be about
$395,000. That is significantly higher than what the
8-6-07 jwk
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
contribution has been, and so what we're suggesting is an
increase of about $50,000 from the current $125,000 amount to
the $175,000 amount. And that's -- Mayor and Councilmen,
that's what your recommended budget assumes. •
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, the last time the contract was
increased was in 2003. It hasn't been increased since then
for fire protection. During that same period of time, the
county population has probably increased by close to 1,000,
and we -- due to, you know, costs of everything has gone up,
fuel costs and cost of operating the business, and the
increase in calls that we've made to the county, we feel like
it's a good adjustment just to go to the 175. We talked about
this, I believe, in March a little bit also.
JUDGE TINLEY: Your addition of a fourth fire
station, Chief Holloway, you think will give us additional
coverage, particularly on the north side? That'll make
additional equipment available to us?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, not -- it won't actually give
you more equipment. It'll make our response a little bit
quicker. I mean, we'll still send one fire truck, no matter
where they're located. If it's on our side of town, we'll be~
able to get there a little bit quicker.
MR. HOFMANN: Just as a quick reminder for the
County Commissioners, the way we allocate those costs is we're
assuming -- we're breaking out the cost of one truck. So, we
8-6-07 jwk
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
are adding Fire Station 4, and that is increasing the City's
cost, but we're not asking -- that's -- the fact that we're
building and equipping Fire Station 4 really has nothing to do
with how we calculate what we think is a fair contribution
from the County. If the deal is we send one truck, what we're
allocating is the cost of one truck.
MR. HOLLOWAY: And the crew.
MR. HOFMANN: And I'm -- when I say one truck,
that's a bit short. It is the costs associated with one
truck.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah. And that doesn't include the
-- you know, we're not including the cost of a new truck. You
know, that's -- we're still at current cost of what we have in
equipment, personnel.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you also take into
consideration the times that the volunteer fire departments
help the city of Kerrville around the edges of either the ETJ
or also within the city limits whenever you have a problem? I
know that they do respond and help y'all the way you help us,
and I think that has some bearing on -- on you, and I just --
you know, they have more than just one truck and one crew that
come to help and assist at times.
MR. HOFMANN: Sure.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I think that needs to be
I considered.
8-6-07 jwk
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, can I touch on that, Judge,
grass and brush fires. We only have one brush truck, and we
definitely -- when we have areas in the city limits, we
definitely need the volunteers to come in. There are
~ occasions that the volunteers come in when we have a large
structure involved and assist us also. But in response to us
sending one truck to the county, it's a little misleading,
because if it's a -- a brush or a grass fire, we respond with
a brush truck, but we also most of the time send a fire truck
out there, and the reason we do that is because of limited
manpower. We -- we have to send a fire -- the brush truck's
at Station 3. When we send the brush truck, we have to send
the pumper with them, because we don't have people to man the
brush truck, at least two people. Unless it's a long ways
outside of the city limits. We also send a pumper anytime
there's a -- a possibility of a structure being involved along
with the brush fire. So, those are petty much automatic
responses anywhere in the county.
The -- we changed -- one thing y'all asked us to do
is change the name of the Kerrville South area, 'cause it was
a little bit misleading, because the Kerrville South area, as
the volunteer department area of response, covers a large area
to the north of the city also. So, we changed that to the
Kerrville first responding area -- fire responding area, and
8-6-07 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
13
limits, even. In that area, we send automatic response to
either a brush or a grass fire. We don't wait till we get a
call. And if it's a structure fire in that area, we -- you
know, the contract calls for the fire truck and three people.
Well, we send the fire truck. A lot of times we'll send a
brush truck, and it's possible for us to have seven or eight
guys out there, because we call in off-duty people to assist
our people. Now, granted, yeah, if -- if it's a good working
fire, we call for volunteers to assist, for -- the main reason
is the water supply out there. Most of those areas have a
limited amount of water, and our pumpers can only carry so
much water, so we call the Road and Bridge crew to bring a
tanker out there and volunteers to bring a tanker also. So,
you know, we work pretty close together, but we send a lot
more equipment into the county than what the contract actually
calls for.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is this increase -- you're
projecting or you're asking that -- that our contract be
increased by $50,000 this year, and then go up incrementally
from there?
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, that's our suggestion.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a 40 percent increase
8-6-07 jwk
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, see, that -- like I said, that
hasn't been increased in five years. We haven't come to y'all
for an increase in that in over five years.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me like it would make
more sense to increase it a little bit each year than it would
be to hit us all at one time with a big increase.
MR. HOLLOWAY: I agree with you, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think anybody likes
that sort of planning. I sure don't. I mean, I don't want to
be hit with those kind of things in my own personal life, and
I don't think --
MR. HAMILTON: Unfortunately, in this case you got a
reduction on EMS. Add the two together and the increase isn't
nearly as large.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But we're going to compare
apples and apples. We're going to compare one thing to the
next; we're not going to try and mix and match, in my opinion.
MR. HAMILTON: I think we're making a mistake when
we do that. I think we're much better off to look at a
package.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, that's your opinion.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Mr. Oehler, if we'd have done that,
we would have hit y'all maybe two years before now, and then
this year we may be asking for another -- it could have gone
up $75,000 over that period of time. And -- and we didn't ask
8-6-07 jwk
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All these costs include
administrative costs, too, and not just fire costs?
MR. HOFMANN: No, sir, it does not.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a real problem with
the increase this year. I do have an in -- I'm not going to
commit to that size of increase or the -- where the City wants
to go, necessarily, without really looking at the number of
trucks and service and all of that. I think that has to be
looked at. I think we talked about that last time. I mean, I
think the increase this year is appropriate. I do agree with
Commissioner Oehler; I think it is much better to try to build
-- to get a plan where we, you know, kind of stick to it so we
don't have these larger increases each year. But at the same
time, you want us to -- what's the -- where would the City
like us to get in a couple of years? What's the funding
level?
MR. HOFMANN: We --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 295?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 394.
don't -- we don't include any administrative costs in there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I think -- I mean, I have a
8-6-07 jwk
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hard -- I don't have a hard time getting to 175, but I've got
a pretty hard time getting to 395 in current-year dollars for
the level of service. And I just think with -- but, you know,
I think we need to discuss that more as a -- a plan as to
where we want to get, what the service is going to be.
MAYOR SMITH: Pardon me, Bruce. Your man seems to
be looking in the window. Do you have --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He wants me to unplug that.
MAYOR SMITH: I didn't mean to interrupt you,
Jonathan.
MR. HAMILTON: Jonathan, I agree with that. We need
to be looking at this longer term. I think we need to be
looking at this as a package, because item-by-item, you can
choose and argue. If you look at it long-term and try to come
up with some numbers, look at it as a package that establishes
the budgeting numbers we're proposing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that I -- I don't
know that I agree on the package way of looking at it. I
think you have to look at it item by item, because the
services are very different. We're talking about -- I mean,
you know, you can't relate to the library -- you can't say --
well, you know, I can't combine the library and emergency
services as one package, to me. Emergency services are a much
higher priority to me than the library. So -- I mean, so
they're not equal, in my mind. So, I think you have to look
8-6-07 jwk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
at them -- or I have to look at them as, you know, EMS and
those two. But we start expanding it to other things, the
airport and library, some of those are much more
discretionary. You know, I can't get that far. But I do
think we have -- we tend to eliminate issues between the two
entities when we can get more of a long-range plan, and I
think we've done that in some areas. I think we're moving
that way in the library, airport, and I think we hit it here.
Certainly, it serves both our interests. But, like I say,
this year I don't have a problem with that increase; I think
that is justified. But I'm going to really have to understand
more about how you get to the 394 number.
MR. COLEMAN: To me, each one of these allocations
is cost-sharing. Each one of them needs to be based on a
good, solid method of estimating what that cost is, some-kind
of science applied to it, which we haven't, I think, had in
the past. And I think it's very good that we've moved in the
direction that we have. I think it's logical to use this one
truck scenario, because we have to dedicate a truck to be able
to do that. If there's a better way to do -- to estimate,
especially for the fire, for long-term, I don't have a problem
with that. Maybe we start tracking the number of responses
and actual costs on that, and try to develop an overall cost
per response that we might be able to charge in the future.
8-6-07 jwk
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOFMANN: We can certainly look at that. It
wouldn't be my suggestion that -- and it never has been.
We've been talking about this cost allocation model for over a
year now, and -- and I would suggest to the Mayor and Council
that we don't allocate our costs to city residents based upon
number of responses. You don't do it that way, and I wouldn't
suggest it would make sense to do it that way to allocate it
to the County either. But what you're paying for -- what the
citizens of Kerrville are paying for, arguably twice, what the
citizens of Kerrville are playing for is building a system
with capacity in it. And we -- and it's what you've said .
earlier; we have to have a certain amount of capacity in order
to serve our service area and the contractual service area
outside of the city. And to me, it makes the most sense in
explaining this to Joe Citizen that you base it on the system
capacity costs, not -- not the number of runs or the length of
the runs. And I don't know any system that bases it on that.
You don't want a fire service for which your costs are
recovered on a fee-based cost basis on number of runs or the
length of the runs. That's just not the way that works. If
it were the way it works, it would look significantly
different than the way it works right now. You're building a
capacity, and you need to allocate the capacity costs.
MR. COLEMAN: Paul, maybe that is not a good way to
do it. I -- I'll withdraw that. But if we had -- if we have
8-6-07 jwk
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR.	COLEMAN:	Or	they're going	to	begin to	cluster.
MR.	HOFMANN:	We'	ve published	that	method,	and if
costs of one truck and then allocating that on a per capita
basis, if that logic doesn't work, then let's rethink it. And
I -- again, we -- we came up with a number, and what we're
actually asking for this fiscal year is significantly less
than that.
JUDGE TINLEY: With respect to the fire service, I
read with some interest a story here just within the past few
days that the addition of this new fire station is going to
cause a significant reduction in -- I guess it's the key rate,
the casualty insurance rate that homeowners pay to their
insurance company by virtue of the rating given in a
particular area. Are the -- are the homeowners in Kerr County
going to benefit from any rate reduction as a result of this
additional fire station that is going to be coming online
fairly soon?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I can't really speak for what's
going to happen in the county. I do know it'll be an
8 percent reduction for homeowners and business owners inside
8-6-07 jwk
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the city limits if we get our ISO rating down to a 2; we're
' currently a 3. When we went from a 4 to a 3, there were a
couple of people in the surrounding areas of the city limits
that were within 5 miles or somewhere in that area of the fire
station; they did get a slight reduction in their insurance.
So, it's possible that some of the county residents will get a
reduction in their insurance. It won't be the full 8 percent
like the City will. It may be a 1 or 2 percent reduction.
But, you know, I can't -- the insurance companies would have
to answer that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Probably be those that are -- that
are closer in proximity to the location of the new fire
station?
MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, any of the fire stations inside
the city limits. You know, Station 2 and Station 3 are very
close to the city limits lines on both east and west, so it's
possible some of those owners -- property owners in those
areas could get a reduction.
MAYOR SMITH: How about in the ETJ? It should
affect the businesses and homeowners in the ETJ.
MR. HOLLOWAY: Some of them, I think, will be
affected by that, Mr. Mayor.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand the assessment
of capacity formula. I'm not certain that I agree with it in
25 ~ its application to the county. But I'm wondering if, based on
8-6-07 jwk
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
your capacity formula for determining size and the ability of
the fire department, would your capacity requirements diminish
MR. HOFMANN: That's a great question. And probably
not significantly. We -- we build a system that is based upon
what is sufficient to serve the citizens of Kerrville. And,
Commissioner Williams, you make a great point, and it's not a
point that's been lost on us. On the one hand, we are
providing a service to Kerr County, and we think there ought
to be an appropriate cost recovery for that. And, again, we
think we've come up with a model that fairly does that. But
it -- but it's also fair and true to say that if we weren't
providing any service to the county, we would not be able to .
reduce our -- our operating or capital expenses commensurate
with the loss of that service delivery burden. Now, I fully .
acknowledge that. On the other hand, the way the County, I
would think, would look at that is, what would it cost you to
replicate that service out in the county if not for the
service being provided by the City of Kerrville? But you make
a good point. We acknowledge that point.
MAYOR SMITH: Perhaps this is a good time to mention
this. Every new councilman has a problem with -- they say the
county's here and the city's here. Well, the city's in the
county. But Mr. Hamilton stated before we -- or asked me
before we started, he said he would like to address the -- the
8-6-07 jwk
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
city being in the county type situation. I don't know exactly
what he wants to say, but he said he wanted to mention
something about that. Every new councilman has this problem.
And do you want to -- do you want the floor to mention what
MR. HAMILTON: Let's use the fire truck as a perfect
example, $175,000 paid by the County for a fire truck. Half
of that $175,000 is paid to the county by city taxpayers. The
assessed valuation in the county is about 50/50, city and
non-city. So the $175,000 the City is asking from the County
for a fire truck, 87,500 is already being paid by city
taxpayers, so what the County is getting is at a net cost to
non-city taxpayers of $87,500. It gets a fire truck
available.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the --
MR. HAMILTON: Do you understand the logic?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand the logic, but I
I _
think the logic -- what I repeat to virtually everyone in
these joint meetings is that virtually 100 percent of the
retail sales in this county are in the city limits of
Kerrville, and the City of Kerrville -- and which means the
county taxpayers are spending dollars in the city limits of
Kerrville on a regular basis, 'cause it's the only place to
shop to speak of. I mean, really. And the sales tax that
comes to the city is far greater than the small percentage
8-6-07 jwk
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that the county gets. It's, like, at least, you know,
probably a 30/70 split. So, by that same logic that you're
using, the county is funding the, through sales tax, city
operations. And I think that you -- and I think you just go
down a path on either side that doesn't make -- you don't get'
MR. HAMILTON: Which is why I suggested we need that
suggestion to be looking at the package, Jonathan. Knowing
that the sales tax will be the response, and therefore, the
sales tax needs to be thrown in. Let us -- let us look at the
whole thing here. We're making the mistake of negotiating
down at one detailed level, and certainly it's worthy of
suggestion so we understand it, but we're ignoring the big
picture. I'll accept the sales tax for the space of argument.
I think it should -- we should be discussing what's a fair
allocation of the whole -- whole package.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you still -- I think we
-- you know, I don't think that I'm doing my constituents,
city and -- you know, residents and county ones, you know,
service if I don't look at it piece by piece. I don't think I
can just say -- I can't go to them and say, "Well, I think the
county budget should be $22 million, and I'm not going to
worry about the details." I can't do that. That's just not
the way my mind works, and I don't think -- I have to look at.
each item, and then you build the budget from the bottom up.
8-6-07 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
24
That's just the way I have to do it.
MR. HAMILTON: If we look at each item, let's put
sales tax on the table.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I find a flaw in that
every -- every issue or every level of service, whether we
participate jointly or whether the City provides it or the
County uniquely provides it, then you find yourself in a
position of -- of analyzing all of the services. If you want
to do that, then you have to analyze all the services that the
County provides to all people who pay taxes in Kerr County,
whether they live in the city or whether they do not, for
which the City participates not at all. Let's start with the
judicial system. Let's start with the Clerk's office, the
District Clerk's office, the Tax Assessor's office, --
MR. HAMILTON: How does the city not --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- all of those things.
MR. HAMILTON: How does the city not participate?
The city taxpayers are paying the same rate the county
taxpayers are.
that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no question about
MR. HAMILTON: They are definitely participating.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. HAMILTON: Let us get our facts correct.
8-6-07 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
25
I
them individually that way.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There are also more people
arrested in the city of Kerrville, and the jail is funded
totally by total taxpayers, and there's no charge, you know,
to the City in any form or fashion that I'm aware of
independently for that service. And the jail is a
$3 million-a-year deal. Everybody pays for it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I don't see
the benefit of going down that road. I mean, the laws are --
the laws are that the county taxpayers as a whole pay for the
judicial system. We don't have the ability to allocate --
okay, you know, city residents, you know, this group of
citizens are a greater burden on the judicial system, so we're
going to tax that segment differently. I mean, it's just --
we don't have that ability to do it, so why even talk about
it? You know, we're saddled with judicial and the jail. You
know, that's the way it goes. The City has done some things
through raising their -- your 4B sales tax and things like
that, that you all took the initiative and got it through the
city, and that's benefitted the county and the city both. And
I think the City has, you know, looked at projects in the
county and funded them occasionally. So, I mean, that's --
all that stuff is just -- it's wasting a lot of time talking
8-6-07 jwk
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
about it, in my mind. We can't change the state constitution,
so we're going to fund what we have to fund by law. And I
think every city and every county have the same issues that
we're talking about, and it doesn't seem to serve any real
purpose, unless we're going to try and get some constitutional
amendments, which I don't see would be much help.
!~ JUDGE TINLEY: Good luck with the Legislature.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, there's always a lot -- when you
have joint operations, there's always a lot of give and take.
And I wasn't going to take any position one way or the other
with Mr. Hamilton's remarks, 'cause I went through the same
thing, but that's -- I've said it ever since I've been on the
City Council. We need to have a better understanding and
relationship between the city, the county, Headwaters, and
U.G.R.A. as to -- we're all in the same boat. Why don't we
get -- why don't we solve our problems a little simpler than
we seem to do -- get into every year? So, the only thing I
would ask is that the Commissioners agree that the city is in
the county, period. That's it. As far as I'm concerned,
that's the end of my comments on this.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can stipulate that,
~ Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SMITH: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: We've got -- if we're over that
8-6-07 jwk
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: What do you say?
MAYOR SMITH: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any more issues on the
fire that we need to throw out on the table?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, only that we're
agreeing to -- we're going to recommend in our budget 175,000,
not 394.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to, during the
II next period, maybe have some discussions as to what a -- I'd
like to better understand how the City comes up with the 394
number. That seems like a high number to me for one truck,
but, you know, I've never looked at y'all's costs. I have no
idea.
MR. HOLLOWAY: That includes salaries.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think that the --
I have no problem with getting in a plan as to where we're
going to go in the future. I think that's useful.
MR. HOFMANN: We did provide a high-level -- I did
it -- cost allocation summary for you, and it didn't make
sense. Judge Tinley and Mayor Smith, at next spring's joint
meeting, we can make sure we devote more time to that.
MAYOR SMITH: This will have to be rehashed. We're
not asking for the 394. We're asking for 50. And I'm sure
there'll be a few swings next year on how much of the 394 --
8-6-07 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
28
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, we also have the
possibility circumstances may change.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: The fire protection picture could
very well change between now and then. So, if things remain
static, maybe a phased-in plan is one thing. If things -- if
circumstances change, maybe we can either look at something
~ different, but --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, with that kind of money,
we can greatly enhance our volunteer fire departments, too, to
do some things when we get up to that kind of a level. We
could have a -- a deal that responds outside the city. And,
you know, that's not necessarily a good idea, I don't think.
But, I mean, when you get to that kind of dollars you're
looking at, you know, our fire departments don't get anything
close to what -- what y'all are asking for in a one-year.
budget for one truck. So, that's the way I kind of have to
look at it from my perspective.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, and for whatever this is worth,
I think that's exactly how the County Commissioners ought to
look at it. There's going to be a break-even point where it
makes more sense for you guys to follow a different plan.
Now, I wouldn't think you'd be there at $175,000, when you
8-6-07 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
29
consider the full range of services that that one truck is
actually going to be able to provide for you. But that's --
and maybe that's all stuff we need to talk about more next
spring, but I understand exactly your point.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think our whole -- one of
our greatest points is that we try to keep taxes as low as
possible for everybody, including people in the city, and
that's where we come from. We try to keep everything -- our
salary schedules and everything we do at the County are much
less than what the City pays, so we know that, you know, once
we agree to fund things like these increases, we know that
we're paying a bunch of increases for salary people in the
city which we don't -- we're not up there yet.
MR. HOFMANN: There are no increases in that cost
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All right.
MAYOR SMITH: Now, when you mention keeping taxes as
low as possible, we also have the responsibility of providing
services for our citizens. And we can all lower the taxes; we
can just say we're going to shut out this, but we have the
responsibility of providing services for our citizens.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know what? I believe we
do.
MAYOR SMITH: I'm concerned with that first, and
8-6-07 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
30
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well, we -- I'm not
talking about lowering them; I'm just talking about keeping
them as low as possible without big increases.
MAYOR SMITH: Y'all probably have somebody fussing
about taxes to you also.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They should fuss at you, too.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure they do.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next one I show is the library.
MR. HOFMANN: We took a very simple approach to
projecting a County allocation for library service going into
Fiscal '08. It's completely consistent with what we talked
about at the spring meeting. At the spring meeting, County
Commissioners actually suggested that we move away from the
concept of trying to define a 50/50 cost share for operating
costs and all of -- all of that, and the suggestion was that
we treat the current amount as a flat number to be adjusted by
some appropriate escalator every year. The idea being, as I
recall it, was that if we -- if we discussed this from the
standpoint of a flat number and not a percentage, and the
County Commissioners wouldn't have to be then working through
a percentage of what kind of discussion, that things would be
much more straightforward. And, so, what we very simply did
is take the current fiscal year's contribution number and add
3 percent to it, and we come up with about $466,000. And,
8-6-07 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
31
Council members, that's what our recommended budget assumes.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment that I'll make is
that I think the discussion ended a little bit differently
than your summary. I think that we agreed to, you know, use
the current year -- base year for a while. I think it was
really weighted a lot on some discussion that Councilman Gross
had about where the library's going in the future. And to
kind of put that baseline in as a -- kind of a place-keeper
for a year or so, and then look at a long-term accelerator --
decelerator on county funding, but have it, like you said, not
tied to -- we're not 50/50 partners. The County's going to
fund "X" dollars for that service, to -- I mean, to allow the'
county residents to use the service, and we're not a partner,
so to speak, in the library. We're just going to provide
funding for a library 'cause we think it is a worthwhile thing
to have available to the county residents.
MR. HOFMANN: And I'll apologize if I missed a
discussion about decreasing that number over time. It's
because it wasn't discussed. It was discussed in one context,
but pretty clearly where the group ended the discussion was at
that flat number to be escalated. And I actually went back
and listened to the tape and looked at the minutes of the
meeting. That is -- and it's up to this body to discuss what
the long-term plan is, but that is where it was left.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me say -- let me say one
8-6-07 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
32
thing about the way the library's been funded. If we continue
to do it on a 50/50 split, basically the operational cost,
past history will tell you that almost every budget year, in
every budget, whether it be city or county, there are excess
funds that were not used in that fiscal year. The County has
never received a -- a credit or a refund of funds that were
unexpended for that budget year.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, you're right, that topic does
have some history. Very frankly, it's not true to say that
the County never received credit for that. Going -- this
predates me, and I may have my fiscal years wrong, but going
from -- from Fiscal '05 into Fiscal '06, the County's
contribution was significantly discounted by that, quote,
unquote, return of equity concept. My -- the predecessor to
me City Manager wrote a long memorandum on that that I think
most people in the room have received a copy of, and so,-yeah,
there was a one-time offer, if you will, from the City to
provide a discount, if you will, for that return of equity.
And that, in fact, was done. This subject --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Jonathan, was that done?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At one time.
MR. HOFMANN: One time. And --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: And then there was some subsequent
8-6-07 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
33
at your last joint meeting or the meeting before that. And,
Judge Tinley, the minutes reflect that you actually went
around the room and asked everyone in the room if we were at
an okay place, if you will, moving forward on that subject.
And I took it from that that that whole topic was off the
table. You know, it is true that in every budget, we end the
fiscal year without expending everything that is budgeted to
be expended. To -- to logically conclude from that that there
ought to be some return back to the County, we don't approach
it that way on any other interlocal agreement, including
Animal Control. That would change significantly, I think, the
nature of those funding agreements, and if that's what this
body wants us to do, we'll certainly look at that. To be
frank, I'm not sure that makes any sense. That's not the way
I think this works.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, only --
MR. GROSS: May I ask a clarifying question? I'm
not following this. Do I understand -- if, at the end of the
year, we have not spent the entire budget, --
MR. HOFMANN: Mm-hmm.
MR. GROSS: -- County contributions don't roll into
the next year's --
MR. HOFMANN: Sure they do, just like everything
else.
25 ~ MR. GROSS: They don't go into the general fund?
8-6-07 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
34
MR. HOFMANN: Sure it does. Of course it does.
Every -- what you don't spend in any general fund operation at
the end of that fiscal year, unless you reappropriate, it
rolls into the next fiscal year. And, oh, by the way, the
compilation of that share that next fiscal year is based in
part on that beginning balance. Absolutely. I mean, I think
that's a fair way to approach it. It's the way we approach it
on every other service.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That doesn't seem to show up
in the documentation, where you're starting with a fund
balance for the next -- you're going to have to allocate those
funds, exactly what was left over, to go into the next year's
budget. Otherwise, they stay in the City's general fund.
They don't come back to the County's general fund in the
~ unexpended amount.
MR. HOFMANN: No, it does not. You're right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know I'm right. That's
I not --
MR. HOFMANN: I'm not arguing that point. And we
don't do it for Animal Control either, or any other joint
service.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what my argument's
going to be for making a set amount, and we could care less
what you do with it. You're supposed to provide the service
25 ~ for us if we give you a specific amount, rather than based on
8-6-07 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
recommending. That's exactly what we're recommending,
consistent with what I thought the discussion was last spring.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Admittedly, I don't have the
minutes in front of me from last year's meeting, but my
recollection is we talked about several scenarios. We talked
about the potential of a library district; that seems not to
be a viable solution. We talked about other potentials, but I
do recall in the discussion, one of us, and I think it was
Commissioner Letz, talked about the fact that the County was
going to put -- establish a benchmark or a cap, if you will,
on what we contribute, and then begin to systematically reduce
that down to a figure that we believed was an acceptable
figure from the County's point of view. Internally, in our
own budget meetings, we have had that type of a discussion,
using the 443,000 current number to begin to systematically
get down to, over a period of time -- like, perhaps three
years, get down to a level of funding that we believe is an
acceptable level of funding. And, again, it's all based on --
in our mind, a lot on utilization statistics. And I know that
sometimes draws the ire of our counterparts at the City,
talking about utilization stats, but in every particular
instance, it has valid -- it is a valid consideration, how
much is being used -- how much of the service is being used
8-6-07 jwk
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
and by whom,	over what	period of	time.	So, that --	tha	t's my
recollection	of how we	came about	this	discussion.	And	we
were to take the 443 and then begin to systematically get it
down to a number that we thought was an acceptable number.
JUDGE TINLEY: The alternative to that discussion,
Commissioner, according to my recollection, was the
possibility that we might look at segregating these various
facilities or functions, and the City being totally
responsible for one facility and/or function, and the County,
in turn, being responsible for another facility and/or
function. It seems to me like that was another alternative
', that was thrown out on top of the table to be looked at. As I
'~~ recall, that certainly would -- would end the discussion that.
we're having here today, at least as to those facilities that
are segregated in that manner. .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct, Judge. That
MAYOR SMITH: You know, you mentioned that less
county people use it. It's mathematically proven that more
county people use the library than city people, because the
people in the city are in the county. That's what I asked you
to recognize. Now, everybody keeps bringing up every now and
then this $94,000. Your predecessor, Bruce, was disturbed
about that. That $94,000 was credited in the -- in the amount
the City put in that month -- or for that year. It was -- and
8-6-07 jwk
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
the County had the election of taking the money or getting a
credit, and they said, well, just give us credit. So -- and
that keeps coming up and up and up. But you got the money by
a credit against that year, and your predecessor knew it, and
he kept bringing up, "The City owes us $94,000," and I kind of
got a little teed off at him.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was it that much, really?
MAYOR SMITH: 94,000 that was accumulated of these
excesses, and it was offered to the County, and they said just
give us credit. And that -- that ended that. I think --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that budget that next
year was decreased by $94,000?
i
MAYOR SMITH: Right, that's correct.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, it was.
MR. TROLINGER: And, Commissioner Oehler, I'd like
to clear up a point, if I may. Judge Tinley, on the
information technology side, thanks to an Open Records request
by our H.R. person, I found out that y'all have an information
specialist at the library. Is that correct? That's based at
the library -- that's budgeted from the library?
MR. HOFMANN: No, he's not budgeted in the library;
he's budgeted in E.I.T. budget.
MR. TROLINGER: Okay. Well, the Open Records
request showed that it was from the library budget. But with
the agenda item for the City/County broadband being on the a
8-6-07 jwk
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agenda today here, I thought I'd mention that, because we're
about to share some resources, and I think it would help the
county out if I had help from that specialist that's in the
library budget, you know, help them with integrating -- not
integrating, but cooperating with broadband services between
the city and the county. Hopefully we'll be able to work that
out on that agenda item.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, on the -- going back to
the -- I'm not real far off from where Paul -- what his
recollection or reading -- listening to the tapes shows. I
mean, I just think there was a discussion there that the
funding amount would be reduced. But I also recall that it
was kind of put on hold until the City did their facilities
plan, and which I think was brought up by Councilman Gross
before. The feeling was from him, and probably by me and
probably others, is that that library is not worth putting a
lot more money into that physical plant; that a new facility
probably needs to be looked at. And I think the City is
currently doing that, and I think there's -- kind of
everything was on hold from the funding until that was looked
at and a decision made by the City. So, that's kind of where
I thought we were; that we were just going to keep the funding
constant until that facility plan the City's working on is
complete, and then at that point, the County would look at
long-term direction for the library.
8-6-07 jwk
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
MR. HOFMANN: Just to make sure everybody in the
room is aware that the County's contribution, at least for the
last couple of years, didn't go towards capital improvements
or the fiscal plan at all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HOFMANN: Nor should it. I mean, it is the
!, city's building.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the contribution level
there, too, also reflects especially one very large salary,
the head librarian. I understand Schreiner College has hired
a Ph.D. librarian for $45,000, and our librarian that we do
pay cost-share on makes 75. Those kinds of things, there are
comparisons.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm a little confused.
I mean, Commissioner Oehler serves on the Library Advisory
Board from the County's standpoint; he certainly is more
familiar with the library. I thought we were going more to
paying a flat amount, and not being a -- not worrying about
the details of where the money goes.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like that.
MR. HOFMANN: That's exactly what we recommended.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think the same theory can
~ work with Animal Control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's next.
8-6-07 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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know.
MAYOR SMITH: I think if I had a Ph.D., I wouldn't .
go to work for $45,000 a year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, they must really like to
live in Kerrville, is all I can tell you.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess my point to that is --
Mayor, is that we have a lot of elected officials that have
monster jobs that are a much bigger responsibility than
running a library, and making a whole lot less.
MAYOR SMITH: We can talk about Commissioners and
Councilmen's salaries if you want to.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wasn't going to refer --
MAYOR SMITH: That's a joke.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Commissioner's salary was not
going to enter into it. I'm talking about some other people
that have very tedious and technical jobs, such as the County
Clerk, District Clerk, Tax Assessor/Collector that have
monster jobs that are making much less than the librarian.
That's hard for some people to swallow.
MR. HOFMANN: Council members, y'all just let me
know if I need to defend the city salary schedule, and I'm
happy to do it.
MR. GROSS: No, you don't need to defend the salary
schedule. We're not here to defend salary schedules or
8-6-07 jwk
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
budgets or anything. We're here to defend the people who live
in this county. And the Mayor made a good point, that our
number one job is, A, to provide services. We've got to
provide services. B is to do so efficiently. One issue that
we've been left with is the unknowable, and we're going to
have this discussion probably when we get to the airport about
overhead and calculating. And we came to, earlier, when we
talked about the fire and EMS, that it's difficult; maybe it's
impossible to calculate exact costs and exact splits right
down the middle, impossible to calculate the cost exactly.
But that's okay; we are paying for capacity. I have not used
Louise Hays park this year, but I'm glad to pay for it,
because I know at some time I'm going to use it. I haven't
used the EMS this year, but I'm glad to know that I have an
ambulance there if I need it. I'm paying for capacity. I
have no problem with that. But we're going to have to stop
trying to nickel and dime this thing, look at the big picture,
and act like the gentlemen that we are and just do what makes
good, common sense.
JUDGE TINLEY: Councilman, do you think it's
appropriate to talk -- to explore this issue of segregating
these functions and/or operations?
MR. GROSS: You know, I think -- thank you for
asking that question, sir. I think -- I think in broad terms,
yes, but in specific terms, I think it's a waste of time.
8-6-07 jwk
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
We're not going to be able to calculate how many people from
outside the city use the library, and even if we did, what
would we do with that number? People outside the city have
the ability to use the library if they choose -- choose to do
so. We're not going to calculate the exact costs of the fire
engine, because Raymond's saying other people from time to
time and the volunteers, absolutely, do contribute valuable
input to this process. So, I think we need to think in broad
terms. We can say, look, we're going to put the money -- I
don't -- I don't know how to do it, Judge.
MR. HAMILTON: I think your question was along
different lines.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah. The Mayor had suggested.
that at one point, as I recall, we look at assuming sole
responsibility, on either the county or city side, for -- for
some of these various functions. He mentioned the City being
responsible for the operational costs of the library and the
County being responsible, for example, at the airport, so that
we -- so that we don't have these two -- two discussions. And
that was what I was referring to, is it might be meaningful to
-- to have --
MR. GROSS: I think it might be very meaningful.
We're not here to build a fence in the area of citizens. That
may be a better way to serve them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think, certainly, it would --
8-6-07 jwk
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
you know, some of this back and forth that I've been hearing
in the last few minutes would certainly be eliminated. And
then any issue of accountability is clear. If there's a
deficiency in the operation, why, accountability is very
clear. And I think -- I think the citizens and the taxpayers
want accountability, very frankly. So, it occurs to me, you
know, maybe -- maybe we could achieve some results by having
that discussion.
MR. GROSS: That'll work for me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- in a sense, we're
doing that with the library. We're saying it's a city
', function, and the County will fund a flat fee for that service
available to the citizens that live outside the city limits.
Airport, I think the same thing has basically been done. If
it would be -- if these two entities here will allow the
Airport Board to run the airport and quit meddling in it, I
think that that problem would be solved. The issue -- you
know, I think the airport has a chance to make some big
changes this year, and I think if it would just be run
separately, I think it would be okay, and let it be funded by
the two entities that own the real estate, but let the other
-- let the Airport Board run it. You know, and I think that's
kind of doing what you're saying a little bit different way.
It's not a complete separation, but it is much more of a
separation than we've had in past years. I mean, the Judge
8-6-07 jwk
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
knows, and so does -- Mr. Hofmann knows, I frankly objected to
having the airport on this agenda. I don't think it's a topic
for this board any more, other than governance only. And I
think the discussion of one taking it over or the other is
~, appropriate. Other than that, that should be run by the
', Airport Board, and then a recommendation made to -- if needed,
i
I to the City Council and Commissioners Court. And I don't see
that -- so I think that, you know, we kind of say we want
things to be run separately, then we keep on meddling in it.
So I think we need to, you know, give things a chance to run
the way they've been set up.
MR. GROSS: Commissioner Letz, you have absolute
agreement that the Airport Board can run the airport. That's
the way it ought to be.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jon, you're -- getting the
politicians out of the Airport Board, I -- I was at the head
of the column when it came to that argument. I think that's a
wonderful idea, and let that Airport Board do what it was
formed to do. What I was suggesting is going one step
further, and kind of as a follow-up on what the Mayor said,
have -- for example, that the City assume all the operational
costs of the library; we'll assume all the operational costs
of the airport. That's -- that's carrying it to the logical
end, I would think.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly shorten these
8-6-07 jwk
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
meetings.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it would. That's where I'm
trying to go.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Couldn't be detrimental, could
it?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unless we give -- we need to
try it, see if it can work. We can always go back the other
way, I guess.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think the issue of -- when it comes
to trying to do these -- these other functions, certainly EMS,
we've got a fabulous EMS system, and I think we're -- we don't
seem to have much of a problem with it. On the fire, we've
got an option if we want to pursue it. We can stand up some
volunteer fire departments out in the county and provide
appropriate funding for them. You know, the two big items
seems to boil down to the airport and the library.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What it seems like.
JUDGE TINLEY: You know, but the only other item of
any material impact is the Animal Control, and number one, the
dollar volume of that item is not such -- I realize it's
growing, but it doesn't rise to the magnitude of the others.
And I'm confident that -- hopefully, we can get that to where
it's -- it's handled in a manner that -- with the ease EMS is
handled. It's just -- it's just the street running the other
8-6-07 jwk
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
direction, is all that is. But it seems that the library and
airport seem to be the big sticky wickets, and I'd sure like
the avoid those if at all possible, if we could do that.
MR. COLEMAN: Judge, just a question along that
line. Administratively, the County seems to be fairly tight
on their budget year to year to year, and in -- the City is
the Airport Manager, because they've had more of the
administrative resources than the county. Would the County be
able to develop administratively to take care of a burden like
the airport?
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm confident that we could. I'm
confident that we would -- we could fund that Airport Board
and let that Airport Board run the airport like it's put in
place to do. We will be a funding mechanism. You know,
essentially what we'll do is take whatever funds we might
allocate to the library and shift them over there.
MR. COLEMAN: I remember a discussion from last
year; I thought about it quite a bit personally, and I've --
I've vacillated quite a bit. I think my number one thought
now is that we need to wait for Bobbie Thompson to come back
with her recommendation. I think that's one issue she's-going
to address in full detail. Regardless of how she addresses
it, my current thinking -- and, again, I have vacillated a
little bit. My current thinking is that that airport is such
25 ~ a tremendous economic development resource for the county and
8-6-07 jwk
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
the city that it would be hard for it to be in either one;
that I do think it should be an independently managed body by
an independent Airport Board, but I think it would be hard to
make it either a city or a county asset.
JUDGE TINLEY: What, essentially, I'm talking about,
Chuck, is just segregating the funding. And, you know, that
would still leave the governance issue open.
MR. COLEMAN: Let the independent board operate it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's why that -- right now,
that's why that Airport Board is in place. Whether you
recognize it or whether it was recognized for the full 37
years now that it's been in existence, that it had the legal
authority to control the operations out there with very --
very specific limitation, that's what it's there for. That's
why it's always been there. Now, it's only been recently that
it's been afforded the opportunity to exercise that authority,
but I need -- I think it needs to continue, and what I'm
talking about here is -- is merely providing responsibility
for funding. If there are additional governance issues that
are -- that are remaining that are to be addressed by the --
by the airport business plan, by the -- this development
strategy work that's presently underway, those can be
addressed separately. I'm just talking about the funding over
here for the airport and the funding over here for the
25 ~ library, for example. And a simple -- simple acquiescence
8-6-07 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
48
that y'all would assume one, we'd assume the other, and go on
down the road.
MR. COLEMAN: Would you be willing to flip-flop
those?
JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon?
MR. COLEMAN: Would you be willing to flip-flop
those?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have a minor problem. All
of the assets of the library are owned by the city, you see?
And I think that makes that aspect of it impractical, because
those assets are -- are totally tied in the city, property
assets and so forth.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think I look -- I
don't see a great benefit to doing what the Judge is saying.
I think it would work. And it really doesn't change anything
~, at the airport. It just means that the Airport Board's going
to still contract with someone to do most of the management
out there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean, the City -- the
County could fund 100 percent of it and the City could still
do the work, you know, if that's what negotiated by the
Airport Board. It doesn't change that. It just changes the
funding side of it, you know. But I don't --
MR. HAMILTON: But I think it's very constructive in
8-6-07 jwk
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the sense it changes this from a discussion where we're
haggling over a $50,000 increase in fire control costs or not.
That goes away. I think the perception of the haggling is
I decidedly negative.
MR. COLEMAN: And it is almost like stepping over
MR. HAMILTON: That's right. All of the budgets are
small.
MR. COLEMAN: -- very minimal, and yet it does
create a lot of contention amongst the bodies.
MR. HAMILTON: So, I think it's a constructive idea.
The problem you've got on the airport is the current agreement
says that the assets at the airport are 50 percent owned by
the city and the county, and if one entity or the other does
not pay 50 percent of the operating costs, all the assets
revert to the other party. That's your current legal
agreement, correct?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. But that -- that's a
new agreement. I mean --
MR. HAMILTON: So, that's the point I'm leading to.
So, if we pursue this idea, the first step would be to have
some attorneys draw up what changes would have to be made to
the current agreement.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. As well
8-6-07 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
50
as -- as well as the service agreement as well. There are
some changes in that, in the service agreement.
MR. HAMILTON: Seems to me, as an action item
leaving this discussion, maybe we should request that such
changes be drafted for review.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I --
MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Hamilton, that's exactly what's --
I'm sorry. I was just going to suggest to Mr. Hamilton,
that's exactly what is happening as a result of the July
Airport Board meeting. In fact, I was tasked by the Airport
Board to come up with contract language that would do exactly
that.
MR. GROSS: Let me make a comment about that. I'm
-- you know, we have a system that is really not proper --
appropriate if we just play by the rules. We might be trying
to fix something that's not broken. And I know that
Mr. Hoffman's been working on a plan to allow the board to
hire its own management, which I think is a good thing, and a
plan that would put us on a cost-plus basis, which I think is
a good thing. But I believe when we actually look at numbers,
we're going to say, no, it's really not such a bad deal the
way we're doing it right now. I hate to use a sledgehammer to
fix something that really just needs a coat of paint.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I haven't
25 ~ probably seen as many of the numbers as you have seen. Paul
8-6-07 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
51
quit tinkering with it and let the Airport Board try to run
it, you know, as an independent entity. That -- and this is
going to be the first year -- I mean, it was -- last year was
a lot of issues, and a lot of them going back to the Airport
Manager issue, who he reports to. That, I think, is -- is
working towards being resolved, and let's let the Airport
Board try to run the airport for, you know, a year or so and
see if it's working. And then, if it's not working -- I mean,
we quit trying to fix things and tinker with it every year.
MR. GROSS: I agree.
MR. COLEMAN: I think I agree with that as well.
And, again, taking into account the business plan that we're
about to receive.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what the Judge is
suggesting, obviously, could work; I do agree with
Commissioner Letz and the City Councilmen. I believe -- I
believe the key to it is allowing the Airport Board to do its
job and contract for the services that are best needed to meet
the needs of the airport, and that never has been done totally
and completely. I think we're on the threshold of allowing
that to happen. I'd like to see that happen.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, I was on the Airport Board about
25 ~ four years; finally got disgusted with the County and the City
8-6-07 jwk
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
fighting. If you want to have an independent Airport Board,
you ought to take the darn politicians off the board and let
it run as an independent deal. Make it an enterprise fund,
that they have to support themselves, and let it go at that.
But, I don't -- egads, you and I have had 18 million
disagreements on the Airport Board over those four years.
And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that all? _
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, well, maybe a few more. I
rounded it off. But, the -- under the city charter, the
Airport Manager, if it's provided by the City, has to report
to the City Manager. And I mentioned that a lot. Now, if you
want a separate Airport Manager, he would have to be a
separate person employed by the Airport Board and -- and
compensated by the Airport Board, and his benefits paid for by
the Airport Board, which --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mayor Smith.
MAYOR SMITH: -- to hire a person and get benefits
for one individual is almost impossible.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not true. It can be done
through interlocal with either the City or the County.
MAYOR SMITH: Well --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we don't -- well, we know
~'I through interlocal with the County, and I wouldn't know why
you couldn't do it, the City doesn't have the same legal
8-6-07 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
53
authority to do it. I know the County has legal authority to
do it.
MAYOR SMITH: But, anyway, whatever -- whatever it
would be. But I think you need to get the politics out of it
and -- and run it like a professional organization. I have no
~I
problem with that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think --
MAYOR SMITH: I don't know how you could do it with
-- with two strong political bodies owning it, unless you let
one or the other own it. As far as I'm concerned, the Judge
said the County would like to own it. I'd give it to the
County.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll take it, thank you.
MAYOR SMITH: Lock, stock, and barrel.
MR. GROSS: Give them the Arcadia while you're at
it. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think --
JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have to take that as part of
the --
MR. GROSS: Package.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Mayor, I just think -- I go
back -- I think the -- my discussions with Mr. Hofmann, and I,
think the -- and the Airport Board, since you've been off that
board, I had -- I see hope that it's going to work out. And .
work --
8-6-07 jwk
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR SMITH: Since I got off it. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't mean it quite like
that, Mayor. But I think that there -- you know, I just --
let the Airport Board try to operate as an independent Airport
Board. I think there is a way to do that. I'm optimistic
that, you know, the discussions I've had with Mr. Hofmann will
be fruitful and we'll come up with the agreements that will be
acceptable to the Airport Board, acceptable to the City as a
manager, or provide most of the management services. And I
really don't think the City and the County needs to be
involved in it.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, the one -- the one caveat to
that is that the -- both entities, the County Commissioners
and the City Council, will need to amend the interlocal
agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, the governance.
MR. HOFMANN: It speaks to how all that works now,
and that -- that will need to be amended.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, both agreements need to be
completely changed, because the Airport Manager's under the
operating agreement. It has to be put over --
MR. HOFMANN: And it will change the nature --
MR. HAMILTON: Both of them.
MR. HOFMANN: It will significantly change how the
8-6-07 jwk
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
City -- the City budgets and how the city is organized. Costs
will go up, and we're not budgeted for that. But that's all
-- these are all solvable problems.
MAYOR SMITH: The way the Airport Board is
structured now, they're an independent board, but they can't
do anything without the city and the county approval. They
can do it; then they have to go to the city --
MR. HOFMANN: Actually, no, sir. That's -- I wasn't
going to respond to the "meddling" comment until the Mayor
just brought that up. The -- the County and the City actually
i
do very little any more. This was as a result of the Airport
Board being reconstituted a few years ago, and just think
about it. Over the last couple of years, how many action
items, other than the approval of the budget, has the City
Council seen? I really don't think it's true that the City
Council has been meddling. Airport issues never show up on a
City Council agenda, other than to approve the budget. Now,
it is true that the Airport Manager has been a city employee,
and there's been a reporting relationship there. And I -- you
know, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that the
Airport Board would prefer a different structure; the Airport
Board would prefer to employ the Airport Manager. And if
that's where we go, that's where we go. There are some
implications of that, but sure, yes, that's doable. We can do
that.
8-6-07 jwk
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
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you say is true,
Mr. Hofmann. And, by the same token, airport issues haven't
shown up on the Commissioners Court agenda either, with the
exception of imposition of a dollar amount for budgetary
consideration.
MR. HOFMANN: And that won't change.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the only thing in the -
governance agreement that I recall that was reserved back to
the -- to the owners was sale of property, acquisition of
property, taxation.
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything else is Airport
Board's, within their prerogative -- its prerogative.
MAYOR SMITH: Appointment of members is a city and
county function.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MAYOR SMITH: Appointment of members on the board
has to be done by the City.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, each of the respective bodies,
under the current arrangement, appoints two.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That probably should change, in
my mind, but --
MAYOR SMITH: Whatever.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
8-6-07 jwk
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR SMITH: There's a better way for every problem
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The better way was approved
by the voters, if we go back in history -- about 40 years ago,
Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: 37.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 37 years ago, when an
airport authority was approved by the voters of Kerr County.
Which included everybody who lived in the city, I might add.
MAYOR SMITH: Good.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But what they failed to do
was give that airport authority taxing -- taxing control.
They could not levy a tax, so you could have an authority
where they were all appointed at large or elected at large or
whatever, but they couldn't tax. They couldn't raise the
money, so therefore, it went begging.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'm hearing a pretty
clear consensus that, with regard to airport operations, that
as has been phased in, it hasn't been on your agendas, hasn't
been on our agendas, but to let that Airport Board serve its
function. My preference, of course, is to have all the board
members not be members of either the Court or the Council, but
that, of course, is another issue. That, I think, will be a
material help, and let the -- let the board run that airport.
Secondary to that, the other possibility that I'm raising here
8-6-07 jwk
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
today in order to avoid this on an annual basis would be for
one body or the other to assume sole funding responsibility,
and in exchange for the other body assuming the funding
responsibility for another joint function like I've talked
about. But that, of course, is -- is separate and apart. It
can be -- it can be plugged in later. If you want to wait on
the airport business plan study that's underway, we can take a
look at that then. We can implement that next year if
~ possible.
MAYOR SMITH: Judge, we're paying for that business
plan; we ought to at least wait for it, to get the report
before we make some decisions. That seems logical. Even an
Aggie can figure that out.
JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay.
MAYOR SMITH: Now, we seem to have gotten onto
airport. There was one thing I wanted to mention about the
library. The library recognized that service wasn't extended
to the county in certain places, and we had a bookmobile that
was going to serve the outlying areas of the county. Nobody
used it, so -- but we were considerate of the people in the
county, but it just didn't work out.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we tried it and it --
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. Sometimes --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- it wasn't viable.
MAYOR SMITH: -- they work, sometimes they don't.
8-6-07 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
59
Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take a little break here
so I can let this reporter have a break for about 15 or so
minutes.
(Recess taken from 9:38 a.m. to 9:52 a.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Before we get back into what we were
doing, it'd probably be appropriate to make some
acknowledgment here for the food this morning. Of course,
Commissioner Oehler was primarily responsible doing the
cooking, he and his brother Donald, for the sausage and egg
and tacos and hot sauce and all that other stuff that went
with it. My wife fixed the fruit. And -- and Jody, our
admin., and Eva Hyde are responsible for the drinks. So...
(Applause.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're welcome. It was a very
inexpensive breakfast. Cost-effective.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get back to work. Have
we beat on the library enough? Or are we going to work on
that some more?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we were on recycling
now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll go to recycling. You
went to an easy one, didn't you? That facility is kind of an
8-6-07 jwk
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
~_
autopilot arrangement. Essentially, the County owns the
property, the City operates it, and it's open to both
citizens, and that's that. Is that about it in a nutshell,
Paul?
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we need to do anything
there, other than what we're doing? If it ain't broke, let's
don't fix it?
MR. HOFMANN: I'm not aware of anything that's
I broken.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question, it was just
sort of related in my mind. What's the status of the dump?
Is it shut down now? Is it still --
MR. HOFMANN: The city's landfill?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, landfill.
MR. HOFMANN: Charlie, do you want to give an
MR. HASTINGS: Love to.
I
II JUDGE TINLEY: We can do that. We want to give you
that opportunity, Charlie.
MR. HASTINGS: Thank you very much. No, the
landfill's never going to be closed. It will always be open
in some form or fashion. The City has an agreement with
Allied Waste; it's a 20-year agreement whereby they're going
to put in a transfer station. And -- but that's only going to
8-6-07 jwk
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
closing and post-closure. But we are also working on plans to
expand the landfill beyond that. We don't want to be
shortsighted. Twenty years seems like a long time, but it
goes by like that; it'll be over before you know it, and we
want to have an expansion that will make the landfill go
another 50 years beyond that 20. So, we're looking at
ultimately a 70-year plan. It will be open. But during the
transfer station, the only part that will be open at that
point would be for your brush, your chipping, the composting
that goes up and takes place up there, those type of items.
Maybe some construction and demolition, which would be soil
and rocks and concrete, those kind of inner sub -- substances.
So, that's the plan.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, from the public standpoint,
they just still go out to the landfill as they've always gone
out there?
MR. HASTINGS: Yes, sir. And when the transfer --
the great thing about when the transfer station is in
operation is that instead of driving their vehicle all the way
~ over into and on the dump and through the dump and over nails
and everything else, they will drive up to a concrete bay,
II turn around, back in and dump their stuff on a concrete floor,
and there will be a loader there that'll -- that will shove it
8-6-07 jwk
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
into an 18-wheeler that'll be in a bay that's lower. It will
just be pushed right over into an 18-wheeler at the end of the
day that will haul it off.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: When will that be operational?
MR. HASTINGS: That will probably be operational in-
the next two and a half, three years.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
'~ MR. HASTINGS: You're welcome.
i
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are the fees going to increase
because of the transfer? Or is it going to be --
MR. HOFMANN: Actually, we think we did a pretty
decent job of negotiating this 20-year contract, with an eye
towards keeping the fees low. And, relatively speaking, what
customers pay for garbage collection today is comparatively
very low. We were able to negotiate a 20-year agreement with
Allied Waste that keeps a pretty significant lid on future
rate increases. They can -- they can increase rates over that
20-year period, but it has to be tied to a pretty
conservatively described cost index.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, 'cause one of things
that we experience, especially outside the city limits, is the
fact that the higher the dump rates are, the more stuff is
dumped on county roads and --
MR. HOFMANN: Right. _
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- property, and left in
8-6-07 jwk
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
public facilities where there are dumpsters, that sort of
thing. So, I know that maybe if fees were free, some of those
people still wouldn't take them. But more than that, increase
does have a bearing on what gets put in -- what gets left on
the side of the road.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That brings us to Animal
Control. I think Commissioner Oehler just released some
current figures from that operation out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Oehler is the -- the Commissioner
that has oversight responsibility of that particular function,
so that's why he's coming with these numbers.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I had Janie Roman, our manager
at Animal Control, to come -- to put together the figures up
to this point of what -- what the experience has been for this
fiscal year, and you have them in front of you, so that'll
give you a pretty good idea. They went back and checked every
receipt; took them several days to do it, compile these
numbers. But the numbers, I believe, are audible and factual.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce, have you looked at --
first, cats from the city, 109; cats from the county, 107;
cats from Ingram, 23. Then we get cats received, 575. Why
don't those -- Kerrville, Kerr County, and Ingram -- add up to
575?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because a lot of them are
8-6-07 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
64
surrenders. There's a trapping program that's going on where
residents will trap feral cats and bring them into the
facility.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, surrenders are not allocated
from where -- they're just surrenders? They're not allocated
to one or the other?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right, they're not. These are
ones that are picked up.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, there's no allocation
as to surrenders?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it will be just -- the
difference in those numbers will be the surrenders.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean, it's fairly logical
that it would be basically the same percentage as the other
one.
i COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would think it wouldn't be
much different. I don't know why it would be a lot of
difference in the regular numbers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same apply to dogs?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- those were pretty
close to 50/50 in the current --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what it appears to be,
from what she's telling me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year, the City's paying 60
8-6-07 jwk
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
percent; the County's paying 40 percent, so the recommendation
would be to go to a 50/50 split?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what -- I believe the
I numbers are close to that.
MR. HAMILTON: And, of course, the city's already
paying 50 percent to start with, since they have 50 percent of
the assessed tax valuation of the county.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The alternative to that,
Councilman, is that you put in your own facility and run it
yourself. And that won't be cost-effective compared to this
cost.
MR. HAMILTON: Aren't we already paying 50 percent
of the cost? Aren't we residents of the county?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm still telling you, you can
do it yourself if you'd like to, and you'll have to do it like
you used to. You'll have your own facility, hire your own
people, and you're going to -- all city people are going to
pay that cost, as opposed to this cost.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the -- that's
what happens when you become a municipality. The county no
longer has authority to go in there and do a lot of these
functions. We're -- or responsibility to do it, I should say.
May have authority; they don't have the responsibility to do
it. I mean, it's -- that's why Comfort's going through a big
debate with Boerne -- or Kendall County right now for the same
8-6-07 jwk
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
issue. Kendall County wants to quit providing these services
to what they consider to be a municipality in Comfort. I
mean, and Comfort is resisting because they don't want to have
to pay for stuff they're getting paid for, you know, at a
lower rate right now.
MR. HAMILTON: Is the County requesting a cost share
from Ingram?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. We have a contract for
housing only at this point, and we are going to be, I think --
being as their Animal Control officer was killed in a car
wreck, may be in negotiation with them over doing some -- the
pickup as well as the housing portion of it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if that's the case, it'll be
-- it will just be adding a third-party into the agreement.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right, party to the
~ agreement.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: 45 percent, 45 percent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe the proposed budget
for the coming year is, like, $240,000, is what we had come in
the other day in court. And that's -- actually, the size of
the facility has been doubled within the last year or so, and
the personnel it takes to run it, I think it was only being
upped by one. Isn't that correct, Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: That's my recollection, yeah.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: By one.
8-6-07 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
67
JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, I think it's being upped by
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Half.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: By half. Half an employee.
And we're using community service to do some of the service
work out there, so we don't have to hire people. So, I think
we've got the costs of that as low as we're going to get it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should also be noted
that the expansion of the facility was done by private
donation; didn't cost the taxpayers of the city or county or
anybody else. It was done by an individual who thought there
was a need and provided the funds.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And by doing that, that's also
upped the adoption rate quite a bit. We're hoping that that
will increase even more as time goes on. We don't like
euthanizing animals. Nobody does. And so the extra facility
will allow us to hold animals longer, and maybe we can get
more of them adopted, but it does create more work when you
have twice as many animals to take care of on a daily basis as
you normally have. But only going up by half an employee is
not -- I don't think is too bad.
JUDGE TINLEY: I noted in Mr. Hoffman's letter his
reference to administrative costs in looking at these
functions. The general administrative costs for the Animal
Control facility, other than the direct cost for those
8-6-07 jwk
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
employees there, they're -- they're not in that budget.
They're absorbed into other budgets, County Attorney's budget,
County Commissioners, Human Resources, all those various --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Auditor.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, if we got our facts wrong, I
apologize, but it was our understanding of that $147,000 cost
allocation that the County asked the City to contribute the
last fiscal year, that 6,000 of that included administrative
costs, was the information that we had. And if that's not
correct, I apologize. And it's not that much money, and we
don't mean to overdo the point. It was just that, again, we
don't consider overhead -- we haven't, or administrative costs
in what we allocate to the County for City-provided services.
In -- in fairness, we suggested that it wouldn't be either.
And if you're saying you don't, then you don't.
JUDGE TINLEY: Frankly, I don't -- I don't recall,
Mr. Hofmann. Last year, I have some vague recollection that
maybe there was a -- a factor.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: And I think the numbers that -- that
Mr. Oehler is going from now are straight off the -- the
budget that we've looked at for the Animal Control department,
raising Animal Control only, and do not include any -- any
administrative allocation or anything of that nature. Isn't
25 I that correct?
8-6-07 jwk
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: So, when -- when will you let us know
what you are asking us to budget?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that number?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think -- I don't have it
with me. I left the budget at the office. Seems like it was
246,000, is what I remember, somewhere close to that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall off the top of my
head, but we will get you that number.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Your costs will actually be
lower this year than what they were last year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the issue with Ingram worked
out as soon as possible. That's a pretty recent occurrence,
I~ that death.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause, actually, the contract
now with Ingram is for $350 a month to house animals that are
caught, and they're limited to --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ten.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- ten a year, yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ten a month.
JUDGE TINLEY: Which they very seldom even come
close to.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, they don't normally come
close to that.
8-6-07 jwk
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Now we're to the
airport. Again.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pass.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What can we say now that
hasn't been said?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I think there's a lot to
be said with that statement.
MAYOR SMITH: That's basically a work in progress
right now, the airport.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure is.
MAYOR SMITH: Things need to be done, but I think
we've discussed it in all the detail that's necessary, I feel.
at this time.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm very optimistic of the consensus.
that I -- that I heard a little bit ago. I think -- I think
that's exactly where we need to be going.
i
MR. BOCK: Judge, one quick -- on the airport. Do
I we have --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir?
MR. BOCK: -- a time that -- when the airport will
have their report in to us, approximately?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Airport Board directed
myself, as chair, and Mr. Hofmann to have an agreement
recommended back to them, a revised kind of management
contract agreement issued by the September board meeting,
8-6-07 jwk
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so -- which will be the third Tuesday in September.
MR. BOCK: And the -- and Bobbie's report is due?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably --
MR. COLEMAN: I thought it was a six-month report
from a month ago, so probably --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About five months remaining.
MR. BOCK: Towards the end, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- but the feeling is that
the budget numbers, you know, we'll work within those best we.
can.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else?
MR. BOCK: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: I -- there were some things that have
been thrown out on the table before, and if we have a little
time, which we seem to have, I'd like to at least keep on top
of the stove, maybe not on the front burner, but some possible
cooperative efforts. We talked about a health benefits
program, about trying to have a -- if there's some way we
could have a joint group -- a larger group, which generally
the theory goes that the larger the group, the -- the more
predictable the cost and more stable the cost, because you're
dealing over a larger group of people, and it prevents one
high health cost employee from really throwing the whole thing
out of whack in a small group. Our -- our consultant with
8-6-07 jwk
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
Alamo Insurance Group, I know in the past I have provided his
name and contact information to the City. I don't know what
degree of melding there's been there. I understand the City
has just recently brought on board a new consultant for
y'all's program?
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, we have.
JUDGE TINLEY: That was, what, within the last two,
three months?
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It occurs to me that maybe the
best place to start on that is to -- to get our two
consultants together, and I think initially they could
probably -- with some basic information, if there's -- if
there's a reasonable possibility that this can happen, they
could -- they'd be the ones that tell us, and if so, what the
time frame's going to be. Wouldn't you agree?
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, I would agree very much, and
appreciate that comment. City Council, we've had some
conversation about this at Council meetings, and it would be
our plan to have our consultant work with yours and create
that, yes, sir. Targeting the Fiscal '09 plan year as a
potential starting point, yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else have any more
that they want to throw out on that?
MR. COLEMAN: I'm in agreement, but I almost
8-6-07 jwk
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
remember some preliminary discussion with one of our
consultants that indicated that -- that typically that is a
good idea, but in our case, we may not have a large enough
employee base combined to impact it significantly. And I --
and, again, I don't know that -- I don't know how I got that
in my mind, but I do remember somebody saying that. Although
I do think it's -- it's important that we investigate it and
go through that -- that process, but I'm not sure that we'll
potentially gain a lot of benefit.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I recall that, but I
think the -- part of the reason was the differences in our
plans, also. It was kind of --
MR. COLEMAN: Could have been.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the cost benefit of combining
step, because our plans are somewhat different, and -- you
know, but I think, still --
MR. COLEMAN: Again, I agree. The consultants --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Consultants get that, 'cause
they understand --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's a totally different
language that they speak. And when they talk to each other,
if we're listening to them, we don't have a clue what they're
saying. But they seem to.
MR. COLEMAN: Don't want to learn the language,
8-6-07 jwk
74
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it is a little difficult to get
geared up on. Another item I put on the program to discuss is
the issue of road repair, rehabilitation, sealcoating. As --
I had mentioned this, I believe, at one of our meetings within
the last year. As you know, Kerr County maintains a -- a
pretty significant capability of being able to rehabilitate
and repair and sealcoat roadways, because we do our own out in
the county, and anytime we construct totally new roadways,
they're either done by developers, or if it's a totally new
project, normally it's handled by a contractor. But when it
comes to repair and rehabilitation and sealcoating, we do that
function ourselves, and Leonard Odom does an excellent job of
that. I know that in y'all's capital improvement plan,
that -- that there's some road issues to be addressed. It
occurs to me that there may be a way, under proper
circumstances, that -- that we could give you more bang for
the buck than -- than a private contractor could. Because you
folks, frankly, don't have the equipment; you don't have the
crews and that sort of business. And if we can facilitate
y'all being able to get more bang for the buck there, give you
more -- more square yards or cubic yards, or however those
guys calculate all this stuff, of work for -- for the same
amount of money, why, it behooves us to take a look at it.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, and appreciate that very
8-6-07 jwk
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
thing to keep in mind -- Council members have heard us speak
to this. We've got a bit of a hump we need to get over with
our funding levels, and we are -- we are planning to infuse a
significant amount of cash into our street rehabilitation
system with a bond program we are planning to have in the fall
of 2008. And, in the meantime, we are literally scraping by
as best we can with roadway rehabilitation, and there's not a
lot left for what you would call traditional preventive
maintenance activity like sealcoating. We do recognize what
you guys bring to the table, and would be very willing to look
at some sort of fair agreement there, and whatever you would
be willing to provide within the city limits, we would
appreciate.
MR. COLEMAN: What about actual road construction?
Can you all do that? Or reconstruction?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reconstruction, we do. New
roads are generally contract services.
MR. COLEMAN: Would you --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a bunch of
bulldozers and scrapers, things of that nature, for big
construction, but we can do repairs, maintenance.
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you call it, your
8-6-07 jwk
76
1 zipper?
2
3
4 it.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. ODOM: Zipper.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Goes along, grinds up and relays
~, MR. COLEMAN: And reforms it.
MR. HOFMANN: Charlie, would you like to add --
MR. HASTINGS: Well, yeah. The City does have -- we
do have equipment and the capability to reconstruct some roads
too, and we did last year. We did Methodist Encampment Road.
And it's not something that -- it was something that we wanted
to experiment with and see what we were capable of doing. We
don't have the ability to lay down asphalt after we've
reconstructed the road base. We can get the base down, but
after that we've still got to get a contractor in to do the
asphalt overlay. But Len and I talked about this same subject
last year, and he said, "Charlie, if we're going to do it,
it's going to take quite a bit of coordinating, because I can
only do so many square yards per year with the material and
the men and the amount of time I have. So, if we do
something, give me enough advance notice that we can schedule
it." And right now, the City's plans are -- and our schedule,
we're not going to do any sealcoat this summer. We're not
going to do any sealcoat next summer, but the summer after
that, we're going to start kicking that program up again,
'cause we've got some streets that it's going to be time to do
8-6-07 jwk
77
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that sort of work. So, if we could have the same discussion
again this time next year, that would be good.
JUDGE TINLEY: Better to start too early than too
late?
MR. HASTINGS: Yeah. We do appreciate it very much,.
and we do recognize that there's some cost savings, and we
just want to be sensitive to -- at the same time, to what -- ,
what Len's trying to do in the county.
MAYOR SMITH: We need to do something about our
roads or we're going to have a new City Council.
MR. COLEMAN: It's one of our biggest issues right
I now.
MAYOR SMITH: No question about that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll let the Aggies work on this
one, Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay?
MAYOR SMITH: Good hands.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next one I've got down here is
Emergency Services Dispatch.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll take a quick stab at that,
'cause Commissioner Baldwin's absent today. He usually runs
with that. He and I have served together. Only thing I'd
really like to say on that is to emphasize that the County is
very serious about offering the property out by the jail for a
8-6-07 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
78
potential future police station-slash-dispatch, and other.
That's a value, I think, of -- you know, potentially -- I
mean, assuming the City needs the space or could utilize it, I
mean, it's, you know, a million, a million-plus land value
that we're willing to long-term lease, give, whatever, 'cause
we don't see a long-term need from the county standpoint. And
I think it would be a benefit from a law enforcement
standpoint, county and city-wide, to encourage, you know, that
direction. I think -- I know we sent over a resolution not
long ago, but it's just something that we're very -- you know,
very serious about, I think, from a Commissioners Court
standpoint, of pursuing. And I think it -- it gets a -- the
joint dispatch committee has met, and there really is no way
to further any kind of a joint dispatch until facilities are
closer. It just doesn't work real well. I mean, it's just
hard to figure out how to make it happen. I think both the
Sheriff and Chief Young were at that meeting, as was
Councilman Gross. I think it just -- it's just too hard of a
nut to crack unless the facilities are located in proximity,
in which case there is some benefit. It's not going to be a
cost savings. It's not a -- economy of scale issue really
doesn't work here, 'cause you're probably going to need to
have both staffs there, but it could be located in one
building or one facility, potentially, and there are some
other benefits to having the facilities, Police and Sheriff's
8-6-07 jwk
79
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Department, located near each other, just by the nature of
having them together, sharing training rooms, break rooms and
things of that nature. There is some economies of scale.
But, anyway, that's just, I think, the only comment I have
really on the joint dispatch, that there's nothing really on
the horizon short-term, but that offer is a serious one from
the County to -- you know, in your long-range facilities plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got anything you want to pitch
into that one?
MR. HOFMANN: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: You know, we don't currently have
anything in our capital improvement forecast for the next five
years for that type application, but we're awaiting our
facilities report, which we're hopeful is going to help
address some of that. It may make sense.
JUDGE TINLEY: How much relief are you -- it's my
understanding that you've got -- that you're going to try and
transition over on your municipal court from a space
standpoint. How much relief is that going to give you over at
the cop shop?
MR. HOFMANN: Some. And Chief Young might be ready
to address that. We know that that's going to create a little
~~'~
!, bit of room. I can't quantify that for you.
CHIEF YOUNG: I'm not sure. I think 2,300, 2,400
8-6-07 jwk
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
square feet, something like that maybe.
JUDGE TINLEY: That much, huh?
CHIEF YOUNG: Yes, sir. It was -- with closet space
and reconfiguring, it may give us that much. So --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
CHIEF YOUNG: -- we're planning on moving some
functions around to utilize part of that space, and expand
some of the -- the current facilities we have downstairs. You
know, you had an old building; it was reconfigured, and
probably needs to be reconfigured again, just because we've
changed the way we function. So -- but it'll -- it'll provide
us some -- some additional space to move a function or two
down there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Time frame?
CHIEF YOUNG: It's not a matter of time frame. It's
a matter of money.
JUDGE TINLEY: But the courts -- is it not 90 days
from --
MR. HOFMANN: Does anyone in the room have a good
date on when we expect that work to be complete?
CHIEF YOUNG: Charlie?
(Discussion off the record.)
MR. HOFMANN: Few months away, 60 days.
CHIEF YOUNG: Sixty days from the time the contract
8-6-07 jwk
81
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOFMANN: And we're looking to appropriate some
funds, and the budget recommendation includes some funds for
the Police Department to reconfigure the space that's being
vacated by municipal court.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, it looks like maybe before the
end of the year, possibly, that you'll have --
MR. HOFMANN: The calendar year. End of the
calendar year, yes, sir.
CHIEF YOUNG: Probably end of the calendar year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, good. Good. Okay. Anything
more on the emergency services issues? You got anything,
Sheriff?
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: I just wanted to wake you up over
I there.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm awake.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dreaming about Colorado again.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Airport governance. I think
we've already -- we've already hashed and thrashed that one
too, haven't we?
MAYOR SMITH: I agree with you.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Broadband services. You have.
to get information from someone other than me, 'cause I'm
technologically challenged. But, John, tell us -- tell us
8-6-07 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
what kind of cooperative possibilities you see there.
MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I know you put this on
the agenda because I mentioned it in our budget workshops.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. TROLINGER: And it's a project that started with
the former I.S. head at the City, and the project stagnated.
That's why it came up in a workshop. And one of the things
that -- that everybody in this room probably has is a
computer, and relies on that computer, including the isolated
outposts, which, you know, some of them are out in Ingram for
us, some of them out towards the dump. But the backbone of
that whole system is the network, the computer network. And
I the County's built an $8,000 per-year cost for -- recurring
cost network, and what I'm trying do is increase the amount of
-- of bandwidth without increasing this annual cost that we're
paying. The City has water towers and water tanks, and we
agreed to use those facilities to install microwave relays.
The primary purpose was to connect the Sheriff's Office to the
courthouse for our side, and the city -- the Police Department
with the courthouse for law enforcement, information sharing.'
In November, we agreed on all this, and as of March, the last
status I had, we didn't have pricing from the contractor. The
City Manager has been -- and Travis Cochrane and I spoke
before the meeting. Sounds like we've reached an agreement to
do this, but I just want to make y'all aware that sharing --
8-6-07 jwk
83
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
expanding this and sharing a city/county network has a lot of
benefits for everybody.
MR. HOFMANN: And -- and I will apologize to the _
County Commissioners and to the City Council; I was not aware
we had a project like this until John mentioned it to me right
evaluate what this might look like, and it -- it makes -- it
certainly makes sense to at least do that, and so we will
spend some time on it and we'll come back with a report on
where we need to go.
MAYOR SMITH: Since the Judge mentioned he's
technically challenged, the Mayor is technically challenged,
and can you describe what a broadband is in a couple of
reasonable sentences?
MR. TROLINGER: What we're really talking about is
bandwidth, the thing that your computer uses to connect -- the
wire that plugs into your network locally. You've got lots of
bandwidth, but when you want to go outside the -- the city
building that you're in and connect to the Internet or connect
to another city facility, you need to have a connection,
basically like a telephone line. And the amount of bandwidth
that the county has right now between the Sheriff's Office and
courthouse is out -- is becoming -- you know, growing, so we
need more bandwidth.
25 ~ MR. GROSS: Like putting a bigger water tank into
8-6-07 jwk
84
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
MR. TROLINGER: We've got two options. I can pay a
very expensive fiberoptic lease, you know, to have a
fiberoptic line, or we can utilize the city facilities and
install our own microwave links. And in conjunction with
that, I think Travis and I can work with -- with y'all's
network engineer at the library, and -- and, you know, help --
he could help out, so we don't -- kind of -- kind of smooth
things out. That's where I see that working.
MAYOR SMITH: Sounds like a good program from my
untechnical viewpoint.
MR. TROLINGER: But it doesn't -- in some respects,
it makes this a joint network between the city and the county.
I We can share resources.
MAYOR SMITH: That's --
MR. TROLINGER: Saves money.
MAYOR SMITH: -- what we should be doing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever all that means.
MR. TROLINGER: I'd like to see it move as quickly
as possible. It's budgeted -- some money is budgeted this
year; it needs to be spent before the end of the fiscal year,
and then the next year, additional.
MAYOR SMITH: Thank you.
MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome, sir.
8-6-07 jwk
85
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything in
connection with that particular item? I note that the Mayor
has -- the manager has put announcements on his agenda. I
guess I'll --
MR. COLEMAN: Mayor? In the -- in light of joint
projects that we're talking about, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. COLEMAN: -- I have one other one I'd like to
ask about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. COLEMAN: And I have no knowledge other than
what I've read in the paper, and it's about the sewer system
that's going in in Center Point. And I was -- I was curious
as to what a status update on that might be. And city of
Kerrville has excess capacity, and I was curious if -- if we
are considered for that; if it is going to go to Comfort, or
just what the status of it is.
JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to defer to Commissioner
Williams. He's the guru on the Center Point/East Kerr
Water/Wastewater project.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Councilman and members of
the Council, the feasibility study that was jointly funded by
Texas Water Development Board and Upper Guadalupe River
Authority has been completed and submitted to T.W.D.B. for --
in accordance with our contract with that agency. In that
8-6-07 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
feasibility study, it detailed two options, Option A and
Option B. Option A was to -- let me back up and say, first of
all, it is a wastewater collection system essentially for the
community of Center Point, both north and south of the river.
And the Option A was for a transmission of the wastewater
to -- westward to city of Kerrville to tie into the stub,
which I assume is either at the airport or in the vicinity of-
Commerce Park -- Airport Commerce Park. That was Option A.
That entailed a lift station and a pretty long push up the
hill to get wastewater to that point. Option B was to, again,
have a smaller lift station, but not as much force behind it,
to take it to a crown around Government Crossing, in that
area, and then go by gravity flow to the town of Comfort, to
the Kendall County Water Control -- Water Control and
Improvement District Number 1 for treatment services.
The Option B to Comfort was the one that was
identified as being the most effective by the engineers who
did this feasibility study. A lot of reasons why. First of
all, the operational costs on an ongoing basis for lift
station and transmission, not treatment services, was less by
going even a greater distance to Comfort. The offset -- of
course, a negative is that there's additional cost to
additional -- the additional transmission line by several
miles. The other option, the other part of that in terms of
making Option B the preferred option was that it puts in place
8-6-07 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
eastern Kerr County after you get out of the -- of the
community of Center Point, what used to be their corporate
type limits, in that, in effect, you've laid infrastructure
all throughout the eastern part of the county, and that, of
course, is a plus.
It is our understanding and belief that that type of
-- that concept is something that the Water Development Board
looks upon favorably, because it embodies a regional type
concept for the establishment of infrastructure and of
wastewater services in particular. We have entered into an --
or initiated and have signed a letter of intent with Kendall
County Water and Control District Number 1, and intend to send
a similar letter of intent to the City of Kerrville for your
consideration with respect to negotiation of -- of those
services or those -- those elements regarding service that
would be required to complete an intergovernmental agreement;
i.e., operational costs, treatment costs, et cetera, et
cetera, et cetera. And in the -- in the letter of intent that
we will forward to Mr. Hofmann for consideration by the City,
we'll be clearly identifying that the preferred option at this
point is Option B. But a lot of things can happen that can
change that, and we certainly would like to have a letter of
intent in place with the City as well.
Secondly, there will be a letter of intent
8-6-07 jwk
88
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
circulated or sent over to the Upper Guadalupe River Authority
board for its consideration, for being the agency in the
middle to be the operator of the system. The County, as we
did in Kerrville South, acquired the funds, did the
construction, and at the completion of construction -- I'll
get to Kerrville South more in detail in a second. At the
completion of construction, we turned that system over to the
River Authority for its operation and ownership. It will be
the intent in this case to do the same thing. The only caveat
with respect to ownership might be that that will depend on
whether or not there has to be any sort of a debt instrument
to pay off the total cost of it, like revenue bonds or
whatever, in which case you couldn't transfer ownership until
that debt is -- has been satisfied. So, that essentially
is -- is the status of it.
We now have an application pending. Having
completed Level 1 feasibility, we now have an application
pending with Water Development Board for additional funding.
Up until about 60 days ago, the application would have been
for what they call Planning, Acquisition, and Design funding,
PAD money. My understanding is, under the -- they're
reworking their rules based on a new funding pot from the
Legislature for EDAP money, economic -- the Economically
Distressed Area money, and that might be separated. Might be
just one element of it instead of three elements of it,
8-6-07 jwk
89
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
meaning we got to jump through a hoop one more time. There
are several steps remaining to get there, but the first step
', has been completed. And that's where it -- that's where that
On Kerrville South, we have completed -- we've
gotten funding for and have completed construction of three of
the four phases of Kerrville South Wastewater Project. They
are finished, and they have been turned over to U.G.R.A. for
ownership and operation. They, in turn, have an interlocal
agreement with the city for treatment services and so forth.
And that's kind of the -- the tri-part model we believe is a
workable model with three agencies working to make these
things happen. That's kind of it in a nutshell, Councilman.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me add two things. One,
going back to the Option A, Option B. Option A is -- bringing
it to Kerrville requires a forced main, and it cannot be -- no
expansion can be allowed into that. If you go to gravity flow
into Comfort, then you can tie into it. That's why the
regional aspect of it's a lot more attractive to the people
with the money, being the Water Development Board, because it
has a regional component to it. And the other part of it that
the County is not involved with directly, and really not
indirectly, is the water side of it. Upper Guadalupe River
Authority has -- I don't even know where they are, but they
are proceeding with applications also to be able to do the
8-6-07 jwk
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
water delivery system into the Center Point area. And -- and
that has some real benefit, you know, where they're going to
go. I mean, they're looking at both -- all kinds of different
options. Some -- possibly, you know, I guess the city
treatment facility, some new treatment facility, looking at
permits. There's a lot of issues that are kind of tying in
also with Region J as to running a lot of models, in the way
of models, looking at all the water issues in the river, which
the City will be very much involved with on the Region J side.
And all of that is -- you know, the area of the county that
appears to have the biggest need for a -- to get off of
groundwater is eastern Kerr County; it's Center Point to the
east. And by putting it hand-in-hand, it kind of -- it all
ties together going eastward. But U.G.R.A. is -- the County
is not involved, other than we're at a lot of meetings with
U.G.R.A. kind of in general discussion about it. They're
doing the water side by themselves.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in that context,
Commissioner, their -- the feasibility analysis for that water
component was all part of the total package, both wastewater
and water, but U.G.R.A. funded the water element of that
feasibility study. That, too, has been completed and
forwarded to T.W.D.B., and my understanding is they have an
application pending, just as we do, for the next level of
funding.
8-6-07 jwk
91
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLEMAN: And I do realize it's just a very
complex project in its entirety, and both sides of it. I
would just hope -- I was hopeful that us, with our
infrastructure in place, might be able to keep it in-county.
And -- but I do understand we've got to do the best for
MR. HAMILTON: A question on Kerrville South. What
percentage of Kerrville South is currently on the sewage line?
Do you know? How many houses are on it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably right now,
Councilman, we have about 150 on it. In Phase 4, we may add
another 50 to 60, hopefully. When we talk about Kerrville
South, that project doesn't envision the entirety of Kerrville
South. It envisioned originally that area from Ranchero Road
and Highway 16 down to -- down to and around Camp Meeting
Creek, the area that was contributing the most pollution in
the county into Camp Meeting Creek, so that's the area really
that was satisfied with this four-phase plan. Three phases
are complete; one more remains to be done.
MR. HAMILTON: So, about three-quarters of what is
envisioned, 150 out of 200?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. HAMILTON: Okay, thank you.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another -- two other areas I
briefly want to bring up. The ETJ issue, I think, has been --
8-6-07 jwk
92
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
short-term, at least -- resolved between how we handle the
Except the Council hasn't acted yet.
It's on their next agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And bottom line on that,.
you -- I mean, a real quick summary, the County's street rules
were generally -- and drainage rules were -- oh, I don't want
to use the word "better." We decided --
MR. HOFMANN: You can say better. "Better" is okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Were more applicable or better
than the city's rules -- standard rules. And those were
adopted by the committee, and I guess going to be recommended
to Council. And then some of the other standards of
streetlights and curbs, sidewalks, some of those issues are in
the ETJ rules, but there's an amendment or, I guess, a waiver
process that -- for developers to look at, depending on
exactly where it is in the ETJ. To remind everybody, this is
a rule that's mandated by state law. There are some problems
with it still, three issues that need to really be looked at.
I think still there's one -- floodplain. This provision did
not cover floodplain, which goes hand-in-hand -- or I should
say the state law that required this agreement didn't talk
about floodplains or O.S.S.F. So, the -- we were promised
8-6-07 jwk
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
one-stop shopping -- or the developers were promised one-stop
shopping, and they didn't get it. They still have to go
through the County for septic issues and review. And
floodplain, as I understand it, if it's in the ETJ, it still
has to go through --
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Len Odom, because that was
not envisioned. Even though those are, in our minds, part of
the subdivision process, they weren't in the state law
process, so developers are still having to work with both
governmental entities. And then the -- the worst problem has
come up in the -- I wouldn't say worst -- frequently,
developments straddle the ETJ line, and I think it is the
opinion of the legal counsel on both sides that the law did
not allow the City to expand beyond the ETJ. And we have
developments right now that are still having to go before both
City Council -- or the P & Z/City Council process and the
County through the Commissioners Court, because they have a
little bit of acreage on one side of the ETJ line or the
other. And we have one right now --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One in my precinct. .
COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the controversial one in
Buster's --
MR. ODOM: Buster's?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Las --
8-6-07 jwk
94
1
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: Colinas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Estates at Las Colinas.
MR. HAMILTON: Estates at Las Colinas.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's controversial because
just -- its poor developer has been bounced back and forth
between the county and the city for two years now, I think.
And now he's just been told he has to come back to the
Commissioners Court, and is worried that he did everything
according to the city plan and ignored the county, and now he
has to come back to us to get an approval, because he has a
little bit of acreage outside. I tried to assure him that I
don't see any problem, but anyway, there's still some issues
there, and we're going to have to -- when the city's
population gets to 25,000, their ETJ expands, and we're going
to have to relook at this whole process again, because this
was envisioned as kind of a stopgap between those. So, while
we've done a lot of work, everything is not still smooth
sailing.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Isn't acreage requirements one
of our problems with that, too? I know we have one out in my
area that was allowed to be put in half-acre -- half-acre
lots, and they still have to have septic. They do have city
water -- or, you know, public water system.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it commercial or residential?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of them's residential.
8-6-07 jwk
95
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The commercial ones -- I knew
there was a commercial one, and it kind of goes through,
because our county standards allow a case-by-case decision. I
didn't --
MR. HAMILTON: I believe we picked up the county
standards exactly in that area.
MR. HOFMANN: For acreage requirements, yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because we really need that to
MR. HOFMANN: That was our intent.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're allowing people to
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That wasn't -- I mean, you know,
discussion as to who has -- who, if either entity, has any
authority over those type developments, but that's still a
little bit unclear. And the other issue that may be useful at
one of these meetings, or occasionally, is to kind of look at
the city annex plan as we're talking about the ET J, 'cause I
think it's going to be something that's going to be on our
table for a long time, 'cause we're going to have to work
together on that as to where the City is going with some of
their long-range plans. I don't know that we need to have a
8-6-07 jwk
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
lot of discussion, but at one of our meetings annually, that
might be a good thing to add to the agenda. And final comment
was, Councilman Coleman had a comment about county budget
woes, and while we certainly aren't flush with funds -- I
don't think we ever will be flush with funds -- we had a -- a
huge amounts of problems. We have, you know, gone through
that. Our fund balance is now on the rebound again, as we
anticipated. We also, over the last 10 years, really have
done short-term financing on -- for all of our debt,
essentially, short-term up to, I think, seven years on one of
them. Those are being rapidly paid off, and the County will
be debt-free in 2012. So, I mean, we're -- our -- and we're
paying those -- you know, and that's when the jail gets paid
off. So, while we're not flush with funds -- I don't want to
give that impression, certainly -- the way we finance things,
we hit a big bump two years ago from a -- kind of a perfect
storm happened, and we're past that. And, you know, we're
looking at not great -- I'd say good economic times from our
budget standpoint of being able to fund what we think is
necessary.
MR. COLEMAN: Jonathan, I'm glad to hear that. My
comment was not meant in a negative manner at all.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't. I mean, you know,
8-6-07 jwk
97
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
useful to bring it up. There was -- we had a really tough
~ year. Our fund balance got, you know, down to below 20
percent, which is -- you know, our internal rules say we keep
it at 25 percent. And we're almost back to 25 percent. We'll
be very close at the end of this budget year, and by next year
we should recoup that. At the same time, we're paying off
debt, so...
MR. COLEMAN: That's good news.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jonathan, back to the issues on
subdivisions and ETJ and so forth, these recent legislative
changes that were made that I think come on stream
September 1, if I'm not mistaken, that effectively give
counties more authority in those areas, is that going to
complicate --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's going to
~ change.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- cause any sort of a problem?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the ETJ, I really -- I don't
see much of a change there. I mean, I think that we've pretty
much worked through it. I mean, the changes aren't huge.
They're somewhat minor. More specifically Kendall County, but
not Kerr County.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's one of those MSA's that
you're talking about?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sort of.
8-6-07 jwk
98
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes?
COMMISSIONER	WILLIAMS:	Commissioner	Letz mentioned
the Juvenile Detention	Facility.	It might be	of interest to
the members of the Council to -- just an update on where we
stand with that. That has been a drag on taxpayers of the
county for some time, but that's pretty well stabilized since
we changed the operation to preadjudicated only in the annex,
the smaller of the two facilities out there. What's, I think,
of equal interest is the rule changes that are taking place
within the operation of the Texas Youth Commission, based on
the perfect storm that they had with the Legislature earlier
this year. The net result of that is that T.Y.C. is looking
for bed space, and they are looking to contract out with
operators for -- to provide juvenile detention type services.
That said, we have a facility that's available. There are at
least two entities that have passed muster with T.Y.C. in
terms of all the hoops they had to jump through to be
considered for a contract who are interested in sitting down
with us and negotiating -- possibly negotiating a lease for
that facility.
One of the concerns that became evident as a result
of that was K.I.S.D. and how that -- how the operation of that
facility affects them. And we've taken a pretty basic policy
8-6-07 jwk
99
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
position that if we lease it, and to whomever we lease it,
that operator would have to provide educational services,
probably through a charter school, the closest being San
Antonio, probably, that would have the ability to do that.
So, we'll just keep you posted. That's a possibility. That's
where that stands.
JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, we adopted the position
that -- that we were not going to do anything with regard to
the lease of that facility that would adversely impact
K.I.S.D. and their mission of education here locally. But to
follow up a little bit on -- to what you mentioned, the
changeover to the preadjudication actually this current year,
the revenue figures are running ahead of what we had
projected. The expense figures are running slightly behind
what we projected, so it's been a pretty good turnaround in
that operation out there.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One other thing, I guess, that
might deserve a little mention is the fact Jonathan and I are
both on the Exhibit Center liaison list to kind of come up
with a plan to expand that facility into more usable type
space that could be probably utilized by the community more
so, because it would be more advantageous for many other shows
and things to come in where you have basically concrete floor
instead of having so much dirt, like we have like in our
indoor arena area. That plan has kind of started to be
8-6-07 jwk
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
developed. We're -- we figure it may take anywhere from three
to five years to bring it to fruition, but we are going to try
to do the bulk of it with foundation or donated funds. And
the main thing we're going to -- the main building that we're
wanting to build is another 150- by 300-foot metal building,
insulated; maybe part of it would be made to be heated and
air-conditioned. And we might actually like to have a little
bit of -- of the hotel/motel tax money to maybe fund the --
hiring somebody to put the plan together for us.
I believe it's an advantage to have this for the
community for all of us, whether you be in the county or
inside the city limits and still in the county. But it's a --
a facility that -- that's utilized a lot more than we really
think about. Not everybody that comes to town can use the Inn
of the Hills or Y.O. resort space. There are other shows and
things that do bring lots of people to do that, eat meals and
buy things and stay in motels. And I believe that if we build
a nicer facility out there, we'll be able to bring more people
in and generate a lot of economic development for -- not
development, per se, but at least generate some more money for
people that have businesses here, and it'll help us all. And
so I think at some point, we might ask for a little bit of
that hotel/motel tax; might help us put the plan together.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, appreciate that.
MAYOR SMITH: There's one thing that I'd like to
8-6-07 jwk
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
there's a group that went up to Washington, D.C. last year;
the Judge, myself, Guy Overby and people from the Chamber of
Commerce, and one other person that's not going to be going
this year. But it's important that you knock on some doors,
not only for the congressmen and the senator, but their staff
likes to see some people, and those staff guys are the guys
that get something done. This year, I'm -- I'm not going to
wear my Sunday shoes the first day, 'cause it nearly killed me
last year. But it's important. And, like, Lamar Smith has
managed to get a $2 million appropriation on a bill. It's not
approved, but it's on a bill, which means it's step one. And
there's a lot of steps in Washington.
He's gotten a $2 million deal for our ag research
center, and he's gotten a $750,000 allocation for our police
department, which is really good. And, so, when you show up
up there, it's important. And there's certain areas here,
like AACOG -- I need to be on another committee, but I asked
to be on the AACOG executive committee. It was kind of
embarrassing; I was out of town the first time I was on there,
but you need -- you need to keep up with these people, because
they -- they have control of an awful lot of money, and we
need to bring it into Kerr County and Kerrville. So, I
think -- I think that's important, that the people know that
it's not just a trip to Washington, D.C. I spend an awful lot
8-6-07 jwk
102
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of time in Washington D.C., and I don't need to go back there
any more. But I think it's important that you do that.
JUDGE TINLEY: We made awful good use of our time
when we were up there last fall. I mean, it was -- it was --
Guy Overby had that thing choreographed down to the minute,
and we made every single stop we needed to make and in a very
short period of time. So, it -- I think we were quite
efficient in what we got done up there.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. Well, I hope we are as
JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir.
MR. GROSS: You know, I hate to argue with people
that I like. And Mack pointed out that we're all of good
intention. And, by the way, I'm sorry I called you cranky in
the paper last week, so I'll make amends.
MAYOR SMITH: I get cranky.
MR. GROSS: I was right; I just shouldn't have --
but, anyway... (Laughter). But I'm wondering if it would be
helpful if we had some protocols for fund responsibility
sharing -- sharing fund responsibility, some general
principles, how we divide up funding responsibility. I think
I would like to nominate Mack for that job, because he's the
deepest thinker on this. I think part of the reason that we
don't make as much progress as quickly as we could is that we
8-6-07 jwk
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
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I suppose at this juncture,
let's take a look. Let Mack go to work and -- and lay
something before us, and we can always hash and thrash, you
know. All we can use is a little time getting there.
MR. HAMILTON: Well, if we're going to do that, you
know, I would suggest we have somebody from the county side
also involved at its inception.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't you dare. Every time
there's something to be done, they all sit and look at me like
they're buzzards lurking on a limb.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster's not here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll serve.
MR. HAMILTON: Jonathan volunteered; sounds good to
i me.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We worked together on a
committee a couple years back. We didn't kill each other
then; we can get through with this one too.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all give it a run. Y'all give it a
run.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a good idea.
8-6-07 jwk
104
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now that someone volunteered to
do it.
MR. HAMILTON: Now that you're off the hook.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Kind of thing we should
~ support.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the choice is
I excellent.
JUDGE TINLEY: Or, like I told Bruce the other day,
"You go get 'em, Bruce. I'll be right behind you."
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't turn around and look.
Ain't nobody there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Have we got any more thoughts, ideas,
possibilities on cooperative or joint things that we can pitch
out here this morning?
MR. BOCK: Judge, I'd like to make a quick comment
or announcement on our economic development study that we're
doing, city/county joint. It's going very well. Again, I'd
like to appreciate everybody in the county and the city for
their work on that. TXP, our hired consultant, just finished-
up one of our local surveys, and had results beyond their
expectations, so I really appreciate everyone's participation
in the city and the county in taking those surveys, and
appreciate Commissioner Williams for getting it out there. He
did a great job publicizing the survey, and we had wonderful
8-6-07 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
105
JUDGE TINLEY: 13th, I believe.
MR. BOCK: 13th.
JUDGE TINLEY: Next Monday, yeah.
MR. BOCK: That, I think, will -- it's a pretty good
workshop, isn't it? Several hour workshop, from what I
I remember.
JUDGE TINLEY: Plugged in between 12:30 and 2:00.
We've actually got a Commissioners Court meeting, and I've got
some juvenile cases to hear in the afternoon traditionally, so
we're going to sandwich it in between those. And -- but we'll
have an hour and a half. I think we're going to have an
update from TXP at that point.
MR. BOCK: We'll do a little bit -- I'm kind of lost
on time frame on that. We have about another month or two
more months before they compile everything together and come
up with a -- I know they're working with the airport strategic
plan as well, the economic development there as well. So...
JUDGE TINLEY: TXP's original proposal was to try
and come forward with their initial results and overall
recommendation to us by mid-September, as I recall. That was
based upon them working with the airport, that they had
actually hoped we'd get started sooner than it did, but I
think there's been a pretty good deal of catch-up going on
8-6-07 jwk
106
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- I think they're
-- catch-up is correct, Judge. But I don't anticipate the
airport study before November, probably.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're going to be bringing
something back to both bodies probably shortly after the
beginning of this next fiscal year, is when I would anticipate
that we're going to be coming back to you. And our plan is to
try and formalize something within the committee, and to bring
it back to you on a unified, joint basis to both city and
county, so that we can be marching to the same drummer on this
thing, 'cause I think that's very, very important. Appreciate
you mentioning that, Todd.
MAYOR SMITH: I don't know if it's proper, but any
of the people in our audience, if you'd care to make a
statement in any regard, we'd welcome it. Seeing none, I
guess we're done.
JUDGE TINLEY: You got anything else, Mr. Mayor?
MAYOR SMITH: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody on the Court have anything
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be adjourned.
(Joint city/county meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m.)
8-6-07 jwk
107
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF KERR I
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my
capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court
of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place
heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 10th day of
August, 2007.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ___ _a_~_ ,~------
Kathy nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-6-07 jwk