1
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 Meeting
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
12:00 noon
KPUB Meeting Room
2250 Memorial Boulevard
Kerrville, Texas
Kerr County Commissioners Court
PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
Kerrville City Council:
TODD A. BOCK, Mayor
T. SCOTT GROSS, Mayor Pro Tem
R. BRUCE MOTHERAL, Councilperson, Place 1
MACK HAMILTON, Councilperson, Place 2
CHUCK COLEMAN, Councilperson, Place 4
PAUL HOFMANN, City Manager

~O
d
...9
(~
'~
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, 2008
PAGE
1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
approve interlocal agreement with the City of
Kerrville for governance and operation of
Kerrville/Kerr County Airport
1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to
establish Kerr County's FY 08-09 contribution to
City/County jointly provided services including,
but not limited to: EMS, Fire Department, Library,
Recycling Center, Animal Control and Airport
--- Adjourned
3
40
86
8-6-08 jcc
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
On Wednesday, August 6, 2008, at 12:00 noon, a joint
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the joint
City Council pursuant to agendas posted for this time and
date, Wednesday, August the 6th, 2008, at noon, 12 p.m.
We're meeting here at the KPUB Board Meeting Room.
Mr. Mayor, did you want to do an official call of your
meeting to order?
MAYOR BOCK: Yes, sir, please. At this time, I'd
like to call the meeting of the -- special joint meeting of
the Kerrville City Council and Kerr County Commissioners on
August 6th, 2008, at 12 p.m., at KPUB Meeting Room.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We've got two principal
items on our agenda to be considered today, and of the two
items, we've got a number of airport people here that I think
probably have an interest that maybe don't want to
participate in the rest of it. So, Mr. Mayor, with -- with
your permission, I'll call Item 2, to consider, discuss, and
take appropriate action to approve the interlocal agreement
with the City of Kerrville for governance and operation of
8-6-08 jcc
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport. It's my understanding
that there has been considerable discussion and meeting in
the recent past between representatives of the Council and
the Commissioners Court relative to a governance agreement,
as it were, interlocal agreement for the airport, and I think
a draft has been circulated. I know very recently, the
latest draft was circulated to members of the Commissioners
Court. I assume it got to Council also by the Council reps.
Members of the Airport Board, did each of you get a copy of
the draft?
MR. BOBERTZ: I've not seen the draft.
MR. KING: No.
JUDGE TINLEY: Oops.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just became available this
~ morning.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The final.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, last night.
MR. KING: I have one in-hand, thank you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are two versions out
there. There's a red-line and then the one that Mike Hayes
is passing out now, which has the blue lines of changes or
additions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike's is the most recent --
they're the same, I guess.
8-6-08 jcc
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The representatives that were
working on that from the Council, I believe, were
Councilpersons Gross and Hamilton, I believe, and then from
I'll leave it to the four of you gentlemen to launch this
thing any way you want to, and we'll go from there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, after a lot of meetings
over months, I think yesterday afternoon, with great help
from Mike Hayes, who there was there and kind of making
copies as we went through it, we went through a draft and
came up with a draft I think the four of us are happy with.
It's -- you know, I guess the -- why don't we go through page
by page? I don't know what's the best way to do it.
MR. COLEMAN: Jonathan, I've seen several versions.
like ownership and the operation cost and capital cost, and
the board providence --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I'll hit the budget one
first. Budget has not been included in this. We decided to,
for the funding portion of it, to put that as an exhibit,
because we knew that was going to be really discussed, and we
didn't feel it was our job to try to figure out that whole --
the budget funding mechanism for all the City/County
operations, and this being a component of that, that was
pulled out. The other, I guess, main point goes to a
8-6-08 jcc
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
five-person board. There's some details about how they're
appointed, and it's -- basically, the appointment is -- we
call it the KPUB model to get onto that board, which is the
board -- Airport Board nominates people. Either the City or
the County can approve or not approve. If we don't approve,
we can only not approve twice, then the Airport Board makes
the decision. It's a way to move it along. I think everyone
is pretty much in favor of that pretty basic model. It
seemed to work very well at KPUB. The Airport Manager
reports to the Airport Board. And I think we have, as much
as we could, given the Airport Board authority to do
everything. There is certain areas we couldn't do from a
legal standpoint, or -- you know, and a few other areas. You
can't tax, can't bond, can't -- no eminent domain authority.
MR. HAMILTON: Can't accept grants without
approval.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't accept grants. Other
than that, it's pretty much a fully autonomous board. We
tried to make it that way. And that's what -- a lot of the
discussion was related to that.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quickie, Commissioner,
with respect to funding. In Paragraph 5, in the event we are
unable to reach an agreement today with respect to the
funding complication of the parties, then there is language
in there on Number 5 that indicates that the parties are
8-6-08 jcc

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
going to fund the airport. It's just a matter of what the
formula ends up being, so as to give assurance that the
it gets to be a stumbling block there, the City and County
are obligated to at least fund it at the prior year's level.
So, there's -- you know, it's a guaranteed funding mechanism
in there in case there is a problem on that. We -- there was
lots of language in the old one about what happens upon
breach and if one person wants to get rid of the airport and
all that, and we eliminated all that language talking about
sale of non-terminating party and compensation to the party.
We got rid of all that language, basically, because --
because of the F.A.A. grants that we accept, we really can't
do that. We can't get rid of the airport; we're stuck with
it. We can let one or the other have it, but all those
obligations run with it. And it was kind of just a --
basically replaced all that language, saying that we're going
to follow state and federal law, because it's really not an
option to not use that property as an airport. If we were to
change the use of that, we'd have to refund all of the grants
we got from the federal government, which would bankrupt both
of us together, so it's just not an option. So, it will be
8-6-08 jcc
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other issue that we did
it may or may not apply to the zoning ordinances that the
City has in place with respect to an airport district. There
was some uncertainty on all of our parts as to whether or not
Section 22 of the Transportation Code enabled the sitting
Airport Board to convene as an airport zoning board of
adjustment. We thought that was the case, but were not
certain that that was the case, and Mr. Hayes, I think, and
Mr. Emerson were going to perhaps do some research on that.
Can you enlighten us a little bit on that, Mike?
MR. HAYES: Well, I'll get with -- yeah, there's an
issue, and we just need to -- I think the issue is how to
zone beyond the city limits. Certainly, we can zone within
the city, but it's how to zone outside the city limits to
protect the airport operations, and so I'll get with Rex in
the near future, and we'll talk about that issue.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is our desire to follow
whatever the Transportation Code provides for in this regard.
I guess some of us were harkening back to history, in that we
knew that under the old Airport Municipal Act, the sitting
Airport Board could convene itself as a board of adjustment.
And whether or not that is still -- we're still able to do
8-6-08 jcc
9
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that or not, we have to refine that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason we got on this
to is is that if an airport's in the city limits, it's
A
subject to city zoning, but there's -- it goes -- there's
also airport zoning that goes beyond just the normal P & Z
type zoning, and the intent is that the Airport Board is
responsible for that airport zoning. How you get there,
we're not real sure. That's what we're trying to do. I mean,
it should be the responsibility of the Airport Board, and
we're talking about height restrictions and all that stuff
that goes around the airport.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back to the funding issue.
On this latest draft of the agreement, I see a lot of
highlighted language that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We put in both the City
proposal and the County proposal, most recent as of last --
yesterday afternoon.
JUDGE TINLEY: But if my understanding is correct,
the -- the consensus now is to provide in this interlocal
agreement that the funding shall be as determined by the
governing bodies or the parties from year to year, as it
were?
MR. HAMILTON: Well, we -- you know, since we
didn't -- since we couldn't come to agreement on the funding,
we didn't come to agreement on how you would do it longer
8-6-08 jcc
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
term. I think we -- we have in front of us in this document
both the City's proposal and the County's proposal, and, you
know, they differ.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the long-term issue, as I'm
sure everyone knows, we -- we cannot obligate funds beyond
this current budget -- this upcoming current budget year, and
that's pretty uniform in local government. Coming up with a
plan, of course, is something different. But if we're going
to get an interlocal agreement concerning, quote, governance,
unquote, and operations, it occurs to me that if we don't
specifically go to this year's funding, for example, this
coming year's funding in this interlocal agreement, we can
move forward with the approval or disapproval, for whatever
reason, of the agreement and then consider the funding issue
separately, is what I'm suggesting, I suppose.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's what we said.
If we look on Page 6, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Item 5, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think we can almost just
leave the first sentence. To assure the objective of the
continuation of efficient airport operations, each party is
obligated to the other party to contribute funds for the
airport annual budget -- well, for the budget.
8-6-08 jcc
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Period.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Period. Put a period on that
right there. We're obligated to fund it. It may vary from
year to year how that's accomplished. Depends on other
things. And it's really -- you know, we're just -- what we
-- we felt that it was -- yesterday that it was very
important that we committed in this agreement that the two
owners are going to fund that airport, because we're asking
them to go on doing some things very differently, and they
need to have assurance that that funding is there, 'cause
they don't have any other source. And that was the intent,
is that it will be funded. Hopefully, we can come up with a
plan, long-term, that we can live with and stay by. But even
if we don't, we're obligated to fund that airport, and I
think we have to do that under state and federal law right
I now .
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had originally talked
about that particular sentence in Number 5 that is saying
that we're obligated to the other party to commit funds for
the airport budget, as detailed in exhibit whatever. And
exhibit whatever is -- is an ongoing document from year to
year, based on the funding obligations of the other. If
that's an appropriate approach.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, from a legal standpoint, I
guess the issue is, if you're going to put the funding in --
8-6-08 jcc
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
even in an exhibit here, you got an incomplete document until
such time as you get the exhibit.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true.
JUDGE TINLEY: So, I guess my approach here is to
take the details of the funding out, put in a requirement
that the parties are obligated to provide adequate funding
for the operation of the airport, and as the Airport Board
may require, and -- reasonably require, but just stop it at
that. And --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- then we'll consider the funding
separately, I think is probably the best way to go. We're in
a position to do that, I think.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. That's fine
with us.
MAYOR BOCK: Judge, is that a complete different
agreement upon another contract and a funding agreement, as
we do for the library and the others, to where it would be
outside, separate?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MAYOR BOCK: For example, in this -- today's agenda
item, it would be up with the airport and animal control. It
would be another issue, separate.
JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. Because what we're doing
here is -- is an interlocal agreement that, long-term, up to
8-6-08 jcc
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
what, 2018, I believe? 2013, and automatically renewable.
But our funding can only be from year to year because of
legal constraints.
MAYOR BOCK: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then we -- we'd handle the
funding in such amounts and in such ratios or proportions as
we may agree upon, along with these other items.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, also, under duration
of agreement, just making reference to that, while the
termination date was 2013, I believe we agreed to five-year
increments. Is that correct, Councilman? It said one.
MR. HAMILTON: Okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That should be changed to
five-year terms instead of one-year terms.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: With the same -- with the same
cancellation, and 90 days?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. HAYES: Judge, if you're talking about --
certainly, you can't fund beyond one year. Five -- and I
understand five may go away. I'm just having a broad
statement, but there's also a termination provision in here
8-6-08 jcc
14
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that says you can terminate in any year; you just -- you're
stuck with that current fiscal year. So, that -- that gets
you outside of that, so this wouldn't lock you into a
five-year funding mechanism. You could still -- you know,
down the road, a year, two years from now, you could -- one
of the parties could terminate this agreement for the end of
that current fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Locks you into the
mechanism, not the amount.
MR. HAYES: Right. Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HAMILTON: One of the things we discussed is,
it's highly likely that the Airport Manager, whoever it may
be, will be hired under some sort of a contract. That will
be a multi-year contract that will probably have some sort of
termination clause in it, with a severance amount in the
event the contract is not fulfilled to completion. That --
that will represent -- and we'll try to put words in it, but
that will represent a commitment of funds, at least to the
extent of the severance amount that would go beyond the
budget for the years.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Represents a contingent
liability for the board.
JUDGE TINLEY: It would occur to me that possibly
in the contract with the -- with the Airport Manager, there
8-6-08 jcc
15
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
probably needs to be a bail-out clause in there, with
possibly a severance item attached to it, that in the event
that the -- the agreement is terminated, and no further
provision is made for the continuation of that Airport
Manager -- I don't see that as any sort of a possibility, but
it -- I can't see the board -- I can't see their having the
ability to commit funds beyond where we can commit funds, is
where I'm coming from, I guess.
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. The way -- when we discussed
it, the way we feel this happens is you sign a multi-year
contract, but if you look at it from an accounting viewpoint,
the only commitment you really have, having given notice that
you don't intend to employ the Airport Manager any further,
is the severance settlement. Which then, as Bill points out,
can be put on the books of the Airport Board as a contingent
liability.
JUDGE TINLEY: Right.
MR. HAMILTON: And that deals with it.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. HAMILTON: So, in the one sense, they're
obligating funds beyond the current budget. In another
sense, we've got a way of dealing with it; we put words in
here to allow that to happen, and it's with that specific
case in mind that we did that.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's a sufficient
8-6-08 jcc
16
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
bail-out. I think that'll handle it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah.
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way we were
talking about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on the proceeding, I
mean, if everyone is -- there's a couple of options here. I
think Bill and I have a slightly different -- Bill probably
wants to approve this today. I'd rather wait and get
everyone -- till we meet on Monday, and y'all meet tomorrow
and Tuesday, I mean, being City Council, to let everyone read
it, and then approve it at that time. Certainly no later
than next Tuesday. Or we can do it today, I think.
JUDGE TINLEY: How much -- how much clean-up in the
language do you think there's going to be needed in order
to --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing I see --
JUDGE TINLEY: -- take a look at it today?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing I see is the
refinement of the zoning issue, as to whether -- you know.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's the zoning issue, the
budget language that we pretty much just worked out, and that
one change in the term, five -- from one year --
MR. HAMILTON: One to five.
8-6-08 jcc
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
17
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to five. So, those -- I
mean, and two of those are taken care of, really. The zoning
is the only one that's going to need to be resolved.
MR. COLEMAN: Mike, you circulated a copy to us
four or five days ago of the version --
MR. HAYES: Right.
MR. COLEMAN: -- that you had some e-mail comments
on. Are your comments incorporated in this version?
MR. HAYES: Yes, they are.
MR. COLEMAN: Okay.
MR. GROSS: I think the zoning issue is not a tough
one to clear up. We can just put language in that says --
that says aviation-related zoning pursuant to Chapter 22 of
the Transportation Code. Could we not do that?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- Councilman, I
think that's part of it. The other part is making certain
that -- well, two things. Can the Airport Board sit as a
zoning -- airport zoning board of adjustment, yes or no? If
yes, fine. If no, how -- how is that dealt with? Is it
dealt with through the City's current or existing zoning
board of adjustment, or is there some different mechanism?
If we can get a handle on that, we got it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Chapter 22 is going to
spell this out.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't. No, it
8-6-08 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
18
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't spell it out?
MR. HAYES: It addresses zoning, certainly. Says
that -- you know, that this -- that zoning is a part of the
function of this board, but I think it also -- there's also a
chapter in the Local Government Code that -- that allows
local government entities to create a zoning board specific
to airport issues. And in our case, that's important,
certainly for the City, because we -- you know, the airport
has some areas outside of the city limits that, you know, I
think everyone's addressed here that we want to get a handle
on. And so I just need to share with Rex how I read the
statutes, 'cause there are two statutes in play. There's
Chapter 22 and the Local Government Code chapter, and Rex and
I just need to address that. But I think, you know, you all
are on the same page about what you want to do. It's just my
opinion right now is, I don't think this board by itself can
act as that zoning board.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
MR. HAYES: I think it's got to be a separate
entity. But I'm willing to talk -- you know, certainly
consider what Rex has to say when he looks at that issue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you can do the same
thing; you can say Chapter 22 and the Local Government Code.
You cite both references, then be done with it.
8-6-08 jcc
19
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You could.
MR. MOTHERAL: Mike, is your concern that the board
-- the Airport Board can't or shouldn't be appointed as the
zoning board of adjustment for the airport?
MR. HAYES: My concern is, the way the language is
in there now, I don't think it -- by just kind of some
general language, it talks about this board's going to
consider zoning. I don't think that will enable or authorize
this board to act as a zoning board. That's my first
concern. My second concern is the way I read the statutes, I
don't think this -- this board can act as a zoning board. I
think you're going to need a separate board to do that, and
so -- and it could be a separate board in the sense that it
could be this -- the same members, but they're just --
they're constituted as another -- as another board.
MR. MOTHERAL: In a sense, that was my question.
Couldn't the same members be --
MR. HAYES: Appointed.
MR. MOTHERAL: -- appointed to two separate boards?
They close one meeting, open another meeting, whatever.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of where I've
been coming from all along. The sitting Airport Board could
convene itself as the airport board of adjustment, separate
meeting.
MR. HAYES: Yeah.
8-6-08 jcc
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR BOCK: In turn, then, Mike, would the same
thing apply if the City Council were to do away with our
Z.B.A. and become a Z.B.A., allowing -- in your opinion, will
state law allow you to do that? Or do we have to appoint
separate --
MR. HAYES: You have to appoint separate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, in my mind, I mean, I just
want the Airport Board to be responsible for the airport
zoning around there. They very well may not want to do it.
They may want the city Planning and Zoning board to do it,
but what my fear is, is that if it's not addressed somewhat
here, who's responsible for it, P & Z normally isn't going to
be that involved with the airport, and who knows how things
go down the road. You know, if P & Z isn't looking at things
out there because it's outside the city limits, someone needs
to be looking at it. And if the Airport Board chooses to
say, "P & Z, y'all are doing that," well, then they know that
they're doing it. I just don't want something to fall
through the cracks.
MR. HAMILTON: I suppose we have another issue
here, too, which is the property that is outside the city,
but within whatever the airport requirements are, how do we
enforce it? I don't think we have a way of enforcing it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airport can.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Airport board of adjustment
8-6-08 jcc
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
could.
MR. HAYES: That airport zoning board. I mean,
that's the way you set that up; you design that airport
hazard zone, and then that board is responsible for that
zone, and they have enforcement authority.
MR. HAMILTON: Okay.
MR. HAYES: And that's the issue. We got to set up
this board, I think, to get beyond the city limits, you know,
so that --
MR. COLEMAN: I guess, Mike, what would this board
do? It's a fairly narrow slice of activity --
responsibility, right?
MR. HAYES: It would just regulate uses in this
airport zone.
MR. COLEMAN: We are going to be dictated by
F.A.A., correct?
MR. HAYES: Well, there's going to be some local
control over that. I mean, you're going to have to go
through some analysis and some planning. I mean, it's going
to be a plan to show what areas outside of the airport, you
know, are essential for -- for, you know, controlling so that
you're not, you know, limiting or damaging or whatever, the
use of the airport. I mean, the airport is what it is. And
as Jonathan described yesterday, you don't want, you know, a
six-story building going in, you know, certainly beyond the
8-6-08 jcc
22
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
airport limits, but in a way that it's going to affect flight
planning and all that stuff.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: As an example -- real-world
example, Martin Marietta's developing a mine right across
Highway 27.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they wanted to put some
facilities right up there on their high ground -- little bit
of high ground they have that would impact the airport,
someone needs to be watching that before it gets built.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly right.
MR. MOTHERAL: If they put a radio tower up there,
for example, on the background, it most likely would
penetrate the side slopes of the approach to the airport, and
that would be a problem.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And because it's outside the
city limits, I want to make sure that we're covered, that
someone is looking out for that.
MR. COLEMAN: Authority to do that would be the
Airport Board.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it sounds as though we've got
-- got some more tinkering to do. Let me ask the members of
the Airport Board, they -- you just got the copy of the
proposed -- of the most recent draft. Would you feel more
comfortable waiting until next week and -- and have the
8-6-08 jcc
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ability to come back with questions, concerns, or thoughts at
that point in time?
MR. KING: I'd like to read through it. I mean, it
has all the marks that we were looking for, I think, that we
had requested and asked for in the past. And I can't speak
for Roger, but I would assume we would have to have an
agreement between the board as to how the management of the
Airport Manager goes. 'Cause we've discussed that in the
past, that only two members of the board would have direct
oversight over the manager.
JUDGE TINLEY: That would seem --
MR. KING: Would that be an in -- I would assume
that's an inside document?
JUDGE TINLEY: Internal.
MR. KING: Internal document? Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
MR. KING: I think that zoning -- zoning board
probably would best fit with the airport. The F.A.A. has
ultimate control over a lot of that. They have -- if there
is a penetration, they have control over Martin Marietta and
that type, but someone has to call it to their attention.
They're not out, you know, rolling the area normally. So,
that would seem to be the feasible way to do it. Roger can
comment .
MR. BOBERTZ: Yeah, I have spoken many times about
8-6-08 jcc
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
I8
I9
20
21
22
23
24
25
some concerns I have about the reporting and relationship
between the Airport Manager and the Airport Board. I know
that, you know, the four gentlemen have worked long and hard
on a recommendation, and I think it's time for me to shut up.
So --
MR. GROSS: If you'd have been to the meetings, you
wouldn't refer to us as four gentlemen.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge --
MR. BOBERTZ: I would welcome an opportunity to
read the rest of it and comment on it, but I don't believe at
this point, it's going to be essential. I would like to see
progress made so we can get on about our business. We need
more members, and then we can get on to some of the important
things we haven't done. We need to develop road management
strategies.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if we are of a
mind -- collective mind to move forward, we could adopt this
with the understanding that zoning language, as agreed to by
the City and County Attorney, will be incorporated in this
document.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we've got -- we essentially took
care of the five-year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And the funding, a broad, general
statement with a period at the end of it.
8-6-08 jcc
25
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLEMAN: Bill, me let me ask one final
question on P & Z. Paul, is there any reason from the City
standpoint that it should be either/or?
MR. HOFMANN: On the zoning question?
MR. COLEMAN: On the P & Z.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, now, Councilmember Coleman, you
raise a good question. I wasn't going to bring it up in this
forum, but that's exactly what I was just whispering to Mike
here. There -- there is a combination of both legal and
policy issues at play here, and it may be you guys all have
one mind and there's some consensus on who ought to be making
those zoning district decisions. And we've talked about
Z.B.A. and P & Z here. Now, in terms of the enforcement of
the zoning ordinance, that's not a Z.B.A. or a P & Z
responsibility. That's a City Council responsibility. P & Z
makes recommendations to the City Council on zoning district
decisions. Creating the districts or amending the districts,
that's not delegated to P & Z; that's a state law thing.
That's a City Council decision. And the Z.B.A. handles
adjustments, and it is not in the mix of establishing or
', amending the districts.
And, so -- and I know from a little bit of
experience, although this has been a few years ago and maybe
the law has changed, that one option out there in the
establishment of this entity that has zoning authority
8-6-08 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
outside the city limits relative to the airport, that can be
the City Council, just to let you guys know that. It can be
part of your zoning ordinance and be part of your authority,
if that's what you wanted to do. Or you can create another
entity, whether that's the Airport Board or another entity
like the Airport Board, that has that authority. I think you
-- I think you have that option. And, again, I'm not the
attorney in the room, but I've seen that work where I worked
before. So, that just makes me think -- I think you have
that option, and just to throw that out to the City Council,
and that may be something that Mike and Rex look into a bit
more, if -- if that makes sense, about the creation and the
amendment of the zoning districts. Today, that's the City
Council.
MR. MOTHERAL: But we're not talking about zoning
I districts.
MR. HOFMANN: Yeah, you are. Actually, you are.
MR. MOTHERAL: Wait a minute, Paul. Wait a minute.
We're not talking about changing zoning districts. The
federal government has set up a zoning policy on these
things. It is not that we, the City Council, or anybody else
are going to go out there and establish new zoning districts.
If and when that area is annexed, yes, we will.
MR. HOFMANN: I might respectfully suggest that
yeah, you -- you are. That the -- there will need to be the
a-6-os ~~C
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
27
establishment of zoning districts. And, you know, the
community took a shot at this in the '70's, I think. There
are maps out there today that speak to these zoning districts
outside the city, but outside -- but around the airport.
But, yes, and Mike spoke to this earlier in response to a
question someone had. It has to follow some parameters, but
there's a local decision here either to create new districts
or confirm the districts that are out there. There's -- it's
about land use, and it's about locally creating those
districts, yes, sir.
MR. GROSS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is
more like an overlay district.
MR. HOFMANN: You can look at it that way, yeah.
That's a little technical, but yeah, sure.
MR. GROSS: I wouldn't expect that there would be a
lot of business going to the airport zoning board.
MR. HOFMANN: You know, and somebody else made that
point, too, about how this is a narrow slice.
MR. GROSS: Mike?
MR. HOFMANN: Once you establish the districts,
then you're dealing with amendments as development happens.
It's not a big workload issue.
MR. GROSS: Just for the sake of simplicity, it
might be better to keep it with City Council.
MR. HOFMANN: Something to think about. That's my
8-6-08 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
28
__._
only point in mentioning it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, again, the only reason I'm
bringing it up is 'cause when Martin Marietta came through
the City, someone on City staff sent Martin Marietta a letter
that said it was not their jurisdiction. And that letter
concerned me, because --
MR. HOFMANN: Floodplain. That wasn't about
zoning, Commissioner Letz. That -- and this has been about a
year ago, so I'm speaking from memory. That was about
floodplain administration, and that was the context of that
letter, and that was the question we were being asked. And
we don't -- some cities effect floodplain management outside
of their city within their ET J, but the City of Kerrville
doesn't, and that was the question we were asked.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. HOFMANN: And that's what was said.
~~ COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Was it the four of you that met?
When you talked about this zoning function, what did -- did
y'all have a consensus about whether the board should do that
function or some other group should do that function?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the board should be
responsible for it.
MR. GROSS: I think we were wanting aviation
experts to make aviation decisions.
8-6-08 jcc
29
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: So, the consensus was that it should
be something that the board, either through themselves or
through some other designee, performed when it came to the
zoning issue?
MR. GROSS: Even if we left it with City Council, I
think it'd behoove the City Council to give a lot of credence
to what the recommendations of the board might be.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And the board can very
well appoint City Council. That would be the simplest thing,
sounds like to me.
MAYOR BOCK: So, you want to leave that decision up
to the five-member board to make?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah.
MAYOR BOCK: But then it wouldn't be in this --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be up to the board, as
long as it complies with Chapter 22 and Local Government
Code.
MAYOR BOCK: Okay. That's what you'd put in this
agreement, and then let them make the determination of how
that is -- how that's governed?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. COLEMAN: I think I agree with that, myself. I
didn't aim to open a lot of new issues on that question. I
~ -- I did want to make sure that we were doing everything
~, a ro riatel and in the most simplistic manner that we can,
PP P Y
8-6-08 jcc
30
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
so I'm up to that language.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay.
MAYOR BOCK: Council, any further questions on this
item? I've got a couple, and help me -- follow me through
this. If we're looking at the Airport Board hiring an
Airport Manager, we currently have two contracts out there at
the airport; is that right? We have a management contract,
and then we have a -- this will be a governance contract.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a governance agreement.
MAYOR BOCK: A governance agreement. And then --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Management contract.
MAYOR BOCK: -- the management contract. As it
sits, then, the board would determine all of the requirements
that the manager would have to do on an RFQ basis, or a -- is
that -- that, in itself, is -- is -- we're going to leave
that to the board to make that --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Board function from this
point forward.
MAYOR BOCK: Board function to make those
determinations, here's how we want to do it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They'll fashion the next
RFP or RFQ or whatever for services.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They hire an Airport Manager,
and then they decide how they're going to handle -- get
everything else done, whether they continue the same
8-6-08 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
31
relationship or hybrid or whatever they want.
MAYOR BOCK: Now, in this agreement, does it say in
here, or did I read in one draft that this agreement takes
effect immediately?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MAYOR BOCK: For this year?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it does say
immediately, and then they have -- and there's 15 days, I
think --
MR. HAYES: Board has to meet within 15 days to get
appointed. This agreement basically reconstitutes what --
reappointing Roger and Steve, and then -- and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fred.
MR. HAYES: -- Fred, and then they'll go through
the --
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Within 10, 15 days.
JUDGE TINLEY: What about the existing contract? I
think --
MR. HAYES: No, that's terminated.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- that's where he's coming from.
MAYOR BOCK: That's where I'm --
JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that, but that
continues up until October 1.
MAYOR BOCK: Right. And, see, and currently we
have -- in Number 5, you know, Item 5 protects the existing
8-6-08 jcc
32
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
funding that we continue on. Well, in this time, if
that's -- is it reasonable to ask the Airport Board to make
these changes, get RFQ's out, hire a manager, and then go
through the process of RFQ's before the end of this contract
terminates so that the airport doesn't miss a beat?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that there -- we've
talked a lot about that issue, and I think that the funding
is the key, and the funding needs to be in place for next
year. The Airport Board's going to have to figure out
exactly how they're going to do it. They may -- you know,
that's up to them. They're -- you know, within the
parameters set forth in here, they may just hire an Airport
Manager and go with the City for everything else. I mean,
as-is, you know. Or they may say, you know, let's try --
let's go with the City for two months and then we're going to
relook at things, and there's going to be a negotiation,
really, between the Airport Board and the City as to how that
gets done, 'cause the City's been doing most of those
services.
MAYOR BOCK: That's what I had in mind. But it is
going to cause somewhat of a problem to the City as far as
going into budget right now. We have -- we have to where,
okay, are we going to be that -- we've terminated our
', contract, and -- and with the -- with the Airport Board. And
not saying that we wouldn't relook back into this, but if the
8-6-08 jcc
33
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Airport Board gets together within this amount of time,
they're going to have to call the City and say, hey, you
know, we think -- if they so decide, "We think we want to
go with you guys," I don't think we're sort of structured --
Paul, correct me if I'm wrong -- to do that at this point in
our budget process. Or are we?
MR. HOFMANN: The budget I proposed to the City
Council assumes that things stay the same.
MAYOR BOCK: Okay. That -- so if the Airport Board
Airport Manager in that process?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something's going to have to be
worked out by the Airport Board.
MR. HAMILTON: I think it's safe to assume that the
Airport Board is going to make every effort to get a manager
in place and start off doing things, but that they probably
won't be going. They'll be in that -- they'll still be
working their way through decisions, in which case the City
will be asked to continue for several months. And as long as
the Airport Board is working away and making progress, I
think that's a reasonable thing for the City to do. Now, if
the Airport Board does nothing, then the City has to say,
"Wait a second," you know, and raise why we don't see any
progress occurring.
8-6-08 jcc
34
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR BOCK: Well, as long -- I'm just trying to
protect the business at the airport, no interruptions, smooth
transition, without having any -- any leeway into, "Oh, we've
got to postpone this," or they've been, you know, so long
out, or, "We can't get a management contract yet, 'cause we
don't have a manager." And --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I think this
agreement was silent on it completely, and let the -- and my
personal feeling is, I hope the City is reasonable -- I think
they will be reasonable, and between the City and the Airport
Board as to how that gets done in the time frame.
MR. KING: Todd? I think Fred, our other member,
contract. There are requirements that, with the governance
agreement that we have for grants -- grant assurances, that
the airport has to be maintained. He pretty much made it
very clear that you can't drop and run, because there's a
bigger guy over here that is looking at you.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We also recognize in our
discussions that the next 10 to 12 months is the transition
period, and they'll have to work through it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Without everybody jumping to
8-6-08 jcc
35
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conclusions, but working on it.
MR. GROSS: The maintaining, Steve, is that we
wanted -- we wanted to let you be in charge.
MR. KING: Right. Right, and we've agreed. Roger
and I have discussed it. Roger's very concerned about the
time span, the time limit. I mean, he expressed that at the
last meeting. We will work, you know, as hard as we can. I
think the manager part, we can probably, hopefully, conclude
with that. But, you know, getting on -- if it's -- another
RFP has got to go out and, you know, all that stuff, I mean,
I can probably say from my standpoint -- I don't know what
Roger thinks, but I doubt if we'll get -- I don't -- I don't
think that's going to happen before the date, that we can
come up with a plan.
MAYOR BOCK: That's fine with me. I just wanted it
to be --
MR. KING: We're going to work on it, but we would
assume that -- just speaking from my position, I would assume
', that the City and the County are both going to continue to
work in their best interests to keep the airport funded,
because, like I said, they do have some responsibility to the
federal government because of the amount of money they spent
at the airport. You can't -- you can't let the airport --
there's certain agreements that have been made. You can't
let the airport go into -- you know, fall apart.
8-6-08 jcc
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. BOBERTZ: I think, also, we need to recognize
the possibility -- in my mind, the probability -- that we
will not have a new Airport Board constituted in time to make
these decisions before October lst from a standing start. We
need to solicit applications for board membership. Then
we'll probably need to go through a second process to
recommend -- make the recommendations to the two governing
bodies. They will need to make their determinations, and
it's difficult for me to imagine that's going to get done by
October lst.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We recognize that.
MR. KING: But we're excited. I mean, this is --
this is what we've asked for. And --
MR. BOBERTZ: Yeah.
MR. KING: -- I'm very proud of the four members
that have worked very diligently to get this far, and I think
both parties should be commended for their work.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike -- excuse me. Mike, is
there anything that precludes the current three members from
making a decision on an Airport Manager? Can they start -- I
mean, they can start acting as soon as they're there. They
may choose to wait until they get two more before they make
that decision, but they can do it with the --
MR. HAYES: Yeah, I -- well, certainly, once you
adopt this agreement -- I was just making notes. Those three
8-6-08 jcc
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
members are going to have to be reappointed, and so I -- what
I would suggest is when the bodies consider this agreement,
that you, you know, urge them -- or I think you can go ahead
and make those -- assuming we make those reappointments, you
go ahead and do that with the -- on a separate, you know,
action. And then they'll need to know that they can start
making recommendations, and --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Start doing things.
MR. HAYES: Right, start doing things under this
agreement, sure. But it won't be -- they won't be a full
board right away.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the three can operate.
MR. HAYES: Sure, like they've been doing.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doing the things they need
to do.
MAYOR BOCK: Under this agreement. Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, even with that, I think
it's even probably more important to try to approve this
today, and then for us, on --
JUDGE TINLEY: Monday.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Monday, City Council on
Tuesday, to do the reappointments.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, on behalf of
8-6-08 jcc
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commissioners Court, I would offer the interlocal agreement
for continued existence of the joint Airport Board, and
provide management of Kerrville Airport -- Kerrville/Kerr
County Airport as discussed and amended today. And if
there's -- presented to you in draft, as discussed and
amended today.
JUDGE TINLEY: You offer that as a motion?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second.
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second before
the Commissioners Court. Further discussion on that motion,
or any questions by any member of the Commissioners Court on
the motion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by
raising your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion carries.
MAYOR BOCK: Council, at this time, I'd entertain a
motion on Agenda Item 2.
MR. HAMILTON: I'll move we approve the interlocal
agreement we have in front of us, with the change of
five-year renewal term -- or one-year renewal term to
five-year renewal term, with the caveat the funding has yet
to be resolved, and with the caveat that --
8-6-08 jcc
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zoning.
MR. HAMILTON: -- that the zoning issue has yet to
be resolved by County.
MAYOR BOCK: We have a motion. Do we have a
second?
MR. GROSS: I'd be happy to second that.
MAYOR BOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any
further discussion? Any further discussion by anyone in the
audience? All in favor of the motion?
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
MAYOR BOCK: All opposed?
(No response.)
MAYOR BOCK: Motion carries 5-0.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: Judge, I would also -- I'd have to
comment, I think these four did a very good job coming up
with a document. I, for one, am very optimistic with the
fact they work very well.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to work. It's going to
be okay.
MR. KING: Thank you very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate all of you airport folks
coming.
MR. BOBERTZ: We appreciate the agenda adjustment.
s-6-os ~~~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
40
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah.
(Discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call the other agenda item
that I have on the -- for this joint meeting. Consider,
discuss, and take appropriate action to establish, in this
instance, Kerr County's Fiscal Year '08-'09 contribution to
City/County jointly provided services, including, but not
limited to, EMS, Fire Department, Library, Recycling Center,
Animal Control, and Airport. Do you want to call yours?
MAYOR BOCK: Yes. Judge, we'll also go to Agenda
Item 2 and discuss joint City/County projects, and not
limited to, or including the EMS, Fire Department, Library,
Recycling Center, Animal Control, and Airport. Has anyone
received the handouts from the City? I think, Josh, you
passed things out. Has anybody -- that's it. That's it. As
y'all look through these, some of these documents you have
seen before. And I'm going to revert back again to some of
the work done by the four members of the Commissioners Court
and City Council, including a side-by-side of the City and
County offers, the County's proposal and the City's. Now,
Jonathan, you also passed out some information today on that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the numbers on that -- I
basically worked off that same worksheet, put numbers
together.
MAYOR BOCK: Judge, how do you want to do this? Do
8-6-08 jcc
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
you want to take them in order as they are, or would you like
to look at them globally, or anybody have any comments?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well --
MAYOR BOCK: I know in the past, we've taken them
item-by-item, but sometimes looking at them as a full
package, as we attempted to do last year, sometimes helps.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if I can just make a
comment on the City and the County offers, the two previous
ones, I mean, I think there was, for whatever reason, some
misinterpretation by the City of the County's offer. Not
important. And then we got a response back. But I think if
you look at the two of those, just on the second page that I
handed out -- and the numbers are not exact. I used the
exact numbers I had. Some are County projected for next
year, some are City's, and some are going back to last year's
budget, if I didn't know new numbers. But it shows -- I
mean, the County's proposal was very much in favor of the
County's position; we spend less money. The City's proposal
was very much in favor of the City's position. So, I think
we can pretty much move off of those two. I mean, neither
one of them are particularly good when you look at them by
numbers, in my mind.
The front page is kind of, I think, more the
intent, long-range plan that the County had. And that was --
and it also maintained a caveat that I think the City
8-6-08 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
42
process, was that we try to keep these budget -- we don't
want to get way askew budget-wise. I mean, we want to keep
them basically the funding levels that they were last year.
We don't want to drop a bomb on either entity. We're trying
to work through some things and funding and -- and get there.
And I tried to do that on the -- the handout that I have in
there, noting some of the numbers may not be exactly right,
'cause I didn't know what to put in some of them. But the
bottom line is, they're staying pretty uniform. At the end
of five years, the County's paying about 200,000 more than
the City is, keeping certain -- most numbers pretty constant,
but it gets there slowly. And it also really doesn't
account -- I'm sure the City is going to start spending some
additional funds on the library, which aren't included.
But I think that -- I mean, there's two approaches.
One, we look at it globally, like we have been, or we go back
to doing them one at a time, and then come back globally at
the end. I mean, and it gets to a philosophical issue. I
tried to get to the point where the County was funding the
airport and the animal control, and the City was primarily
funding the library. And -- and to get there, you have to do
it in small steps. Trying to do it in one year, to me, on
any -- anything is unreasonable to the other entity, 'cause
it just puts too much of a financial burden to do it in one
8-6-08 jcc
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
year.
MAYOR BOCK: Jonathan, I'm looking here at what you
have, and what I'm looking at here on the front page of your
proposal is the -- going back to the airport, now, the
funding of the airport is five-year phasing out of the City?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
MAYOR BOCK: And in the library, you have here
the -- is that a reduction?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reducing it to 200,000, and
then there's an escalator in there that -- of -- I think it's
3 percent.
MAYOR BOCK: A 3 percent, okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- basically, it's doing
the City and the County's previous proposal, but extending it
out, doing it over time, as opposed to doing it right up
front. I think the numbers are basically the same. I mean,
you've -- in the proposal from the City, the library,
200,000, and the County took over the airport and animal
control. I think the end of the planning, it gets to the
same spot, but it takes us a while to get there, because I
think it's too hard to do it too quick.
JUDGE TINLEY: The airport, the phase-down, that's
only M & O.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes.
8-6-08 jcc
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR BOCK: Right. That's correct, right.
JUDGE TINLEY: The capital, because of the joint
ownership, would remain a fifty-fifty contribution. Any
JUDGE TINLEY: I guess that's what that C.I. --
"50 percent C.I." Is that what it is, capital improvements?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
page. If -- the areas that are -- you know, the library is
kind of what we've been -- both parties have been talking
about. So is animal control and airport. I will note that
animal control budget has gone up substantially, but, you
know, it's just personnel and the costs of that operation are
increasing. EMS probably is an area that I think we're,
long-term, fairly different still from what the City and the
County proposal is. And I have 48/52 that was -- I don't --
there's a formula that goes into that. I'm not really sure
what that formula is, as to how the EMS was broken up in the
past, but I know last year the County paid 52 percent of the
deficit and the City paid 48 percent. And I know the
proposal that came back from the City was to change that to
the County paid 75 percent and the City paid 25 percent,
s-6-os ~c~
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
See, the whole position
And -- and we can talk about phasing this thing in, and, you
know, might be doable. But is it -- is it reasonable to have
a city citizen being paying twice for the same service?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think they are. Mack
and I, we have talked about this to ourselves, and he and I
just have a different philosophy on this. I think that is --
there's a very different level of service for the city for
most of these areas. And there's things that the county
residents pay that are outside of the tax base; they pay out
of private funds, such as wells, fire, donating to volunteer
fire departments. None of those numbers are captured, but
there are services that are being provided by the City, and
the county -- or non-city residents are paying those. So,
you know, until we can come up with some sort of a -- a true
mechanism that looks at sales tax, looks at fire donations,
things of that type, I think it's a -- it doesn't make any
sense to me to even have this discussion.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You also have to look at
services that are provided by the County that -- that are
never -- never included in the City's budget. One that comes
immediately to mind is the indigent health care.
8-6-08 jcc
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the jail.
MR. HAMILTON: Part of the entire county.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. We're
all county residents.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, you know, if the
City Council and the Commissioners Court -- to me, if City
Council wants to pursue Councilman Hamilton's point of view,
then I think you need to look at putting before the city
voters if they want to get rid of their streets department,
their fire department, the EMS, and the -- and law
enforcement, and let the County take over all of those. And
if the city residents want that and know what that means,
then I think at that point, the County should look at it.
But until then, it's a very -- it's a totally different
issue, and I just don't think that, you know, you can start
piecemealing, saying, "Well, we're going to pick these
services and try to make the County pay for all of them."
You have to do the whole thing, and I don't think the city
residents want that, from those that I've talked to that are
also my constituents.
MR. MOTHERAL: Jon, I got a question. If you
would, please, on the EMS, on the back page, the City's
proposal, if you total the columns, the City and County
columns, then you go to the front page, total City and County
columns, they're not the same. The total dollars should be
8-6-08 jcc
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the same, and the --
MAYOR BOCK: On Jonathan's? Back page?
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS -- I took --
MR. MOTHERAL: 397,000 is on the City's total, and
then on your column it's 345,000. I don't know what the
difference is, or why there is a difference.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where are you? On what year?
MR. MOTHERAL: I'm sorry. I was over in the
right-hand column. We can do any column. I don't -- I just
picked that in the right-hand column.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have 259 for the County.
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 138 for the City.
MR. MOTHERAL: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then it says --
MR. MOTHERAL: 380 -- 397. Then you go up on the
front page to the EMS, and the same column -- and in the same
right-hand column, and you total those two, and they're
different.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't ask me, I just made up
the chart. I'm not sure what happened. It's -- the idea --
the intent was, when I did it, that across the front it would
say 48/52 percent, and I kept the deficit constant as what it
was, the numbers that I had that were proposed for this year
8-6-08 jcc
48
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
by the City. That was what was supposed to be in there, and
obviously I did a calculation wrong. But I think the
MR. GROSS: No, maybe we should -- you're onto
You said we could look at this globally or pick
TniA~rA rAally ~nn~ at nl~klnQ apart. I think We
If you're --
you're essentially saying we're going to put in the same
amount of money that you guys do, library's going down,
airport's going up. Depends on which side of the fence
you're on, but the bottom line is, you're -- you've got 900
-- 2009-2010, 961 and 921; that's essentially the same
amount. 2010 and 'll, 941 and 941; that is the same amount.
Assuming that your numbers are right. And maybe we ought to
just regard these whole things as a constellation of shared
services or shared -- shared services, and just say we're
going to kick in. Give this money to the City; we'll figure
out what to do with it. Is that too simple?
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you look at the coming
budget year, there's about $80,000 difference, according to
what Jon -- I realize Jon's figures are not totally on
target, but -- but they're going to be moving towards that.
MR. GROSS: Right.
MR. HOFMANN: Judge, if I might, when you just said
$80,000 difference, you were comparing what to what?
8-6-08 jcc
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: The bottom line, 981 and 901.
08-09.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I will say, the problem is
with the numbers that I'm not sure I didn't plug in the --
the city numbers that I didn't have for this year. So, I
mean, there's -- you know -- well, there are a couple
examples. First, all the airport numbers are picked up from
the current budget, so we have no idea of what the -- what
the airport budget will look like, totally. I have an idea,
but we don't know what the total exact number is. And the
other is animal control. That number we refined today, and
it is higher than --
JUDGE TINLEY: Not much. About $7,000 is all.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a --
JUDGE TINLEY: That's 342. That's about seven
grand over the budget, isn't it?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's been adjusted since; we
took some of that capital outlay out. They're going to pay
for it.
JUDGE TINLEY: About five grand, okay. It's about
230.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But going back to Scott's view
8-6-08 jcc
50
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
for philosophically, I'm somewhat in agreement as to where
we're trying to go. Then you plug in the right numbers. It
seems the totals are -- and it's not going to be the real
numbers. I mean, we'll give that to Josh and Jeannie and get
it out of, you know, my bailiwick. You know, it just depends
on where we're trying to go. It's easier from my standpoint
if we don't have to go through these long discussions every
year.
MAYOR BOCK: Jonathan, I agree. And I feel like,
number one, with the airport governance, we just did that.
We took that out of the equation, as far as a reoccurring --
a rewriting. We look -- that was a good, positive move
across the board to come up with a solid, long-term plan.
Now we look at funding agreements here. And if -- if we take
Mr. Hamilton's assumptions that the city and the county
residents are paying, that's going to come up with one
calculation. If we use what we're using that you and Scott
are talking about, that's going to be a global -- that's
going to be, okay, this money's going here, and we're not
going to really look into where it's going. We're going to
use the same formula year after year. If you go back and you
look at fire, you look at EMS, we've tackled this so many
different ways. We finally have -- with the exception of the
disparity, we finally have a process I think is working, as
far as how it's funded. Reinventing the wheel every year, I
8-6-08 jcc
51
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
think, is the part that gets everybody. Once you start
opening -- reinventing and going through it again, it leaves
room for change, and we're going to modify this and change
this, which we have the ability to do, both governing bodies
do. But looking at it, you know, Scott too, and in a global
aspect, and we need to kind of decide, okay, if -- if we're
not going to change these numbers up to take care of the
disparity, okay, then how are we going to attack this?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I agree. And I think
the -- I mean, I thought that EMS I thought was more
confined. There's some formula that some people at this
table understand.
MAYOR BOCK: Well, it's actually better -- it's
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, better, because the
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fire, you know, it's -- we're
just buying a truck and half an ambulance or something like
that, whatever we're buying, but we're -- you know, that's
resolved. The ones that are really left are library,
airport, animal control. And the desire is for the County to
reduce and get pretty much out of the library business, and
to help offset that cost, we'll pick up animal control, which
we're fine with; that's our entity. And then to make up
s-6-os ~~C
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
negotiating with the airport, because every dollar we get on
the airport is a dollar I didn't get on the library, so
instead of the right pocket, left pocket, and I felt stupid
MR. COLEMAN: I guess my -- it may be similar to
what you're saying. My perspective, when I look at this five
years out, and the only thing we really have to worry about
is the library and EMS, I kind of like that. You know,
that's positive. That's very good. That's positive stuff.
I -- I personally think Mack did a -- a good job with this
analysis to show -- to show the city/county imbalance, and it
concerns me; that we need to make sure, collectively, as city
representatives, that we're doing a good job with the city
citizens, and that bothers me. I don't -- I don't know that
we are doing as good a job as we probably should. However,
that being said, I don't necessarily think this is where you
fix it, either. I think we need a -- a better, more
long-term approach on how to fix that, and I don't know what
it is. I really don't. I'm open to suggestions on that.
And I guess -- I guess what I'm saying is that I really
support this fifth year out; I like that. I think that's
very positive, very good.
MAYOR BOCK: What's that, Chuck?
8-6-08 jcc
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
IO
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. COLEMAN: The fifth year out in Jonathan's.
MAYOR BOCK: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the fourth year out
better. Somehow the County got the short end in the fifth
year. But, anyway --
MR. COLEMAN: The other thing that does concern me
is the -- the budget increase for animal control. That is
pretty significant. I'm not sure I understand all of the ins
and outs of that, but that's kind of my understanding, too.
Is there a way to move the fifth year up to the third year?
(Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's that incremental
thing he was talking about, Chuck.
MR. COLEMAN: That's kind of still incremental.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's just a larger increment, right?
MR. COLEMAN: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: It's not incremental, is it, if it's
one increment.
MR. HAMILTON: Well, let's pursue the animal
control issue. That's -- I'm assuming Jonathan's numbers are
right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're a little bit off, by
7,000, basically.
MR. COLEMAN: My only concern about that, that's
showing more dollars from the County in this fifth year than
8-6-08 jcc
54
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
there might be otherwise.
MR. HAMILTON: It's also showing, from last year to
this year, over a 50 percent increase.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, this is part of
the --
MR. HAMILTON: Is there a reason for that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of that is, in this
year's -- or last year's -- current year numbers, roughly 10
percent goes to Ingram. I didn't pull out their part in the
future year's, 'cause I didn't -- 'cause we had not, as a
Commissioners Court, decided how we were -- what we were
going to do with that, so that's part of that increase. And
the other part of it is staffing, fuel, --
JUDGE TINLEY: Equipment.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- equipment. It's just --
they're real cost increases.
MR. HAMILTON: You're going from 215 to 342.
MS. HARGIS: 291.
MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Letz, in '09, are you netting out
revenues? Because you did in '08.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm not doing any future
years. '08, does -- does it out of -- as an increment.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, how far -- and, Council
members, just to kind of keep you up on where we are relative
to the budget I presented last week, looking at this handout,
8-6-08 jcc
55
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that '09 column for what the city contribution would be, and
it's because of the animal control number. Everything is
pretty much in alignment with the budget I recommended except
for the animal control number. Our budget, based upon our
reading of Judge Tinley's letter and what we knew about the
animal control budget, assumed a city expense of 62,000, and
this assumes a city expense of 142,000, so we're off $80,000
compared to the budget.
MR. HAMILTON: What I heard in Jonathan's number,
all the costs we've been showing are net costs.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not trying to pull a fast
one. I did this last night after we got home. I was up late
last night trying to put this together, and I was pulling
from whatever I had at my home office. I mean, and that's
why I said --
MR. COLEMAN: Where's the impact? It's just the
animal control?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Animal control is the one that
I didn't net out the revenue side, and I didn't take out
Ingram because I ran out of space on my computer. And my
wife told me to go to bed. (Laughter.)
JUDGE TINLEY: It was past your bedtime, was it?
MR. HOFMANN: And so, if we might suggest, without
having those numbers in front of us, there was -- you get --
what we tried to do with my budget recommendation to Council
8-6-08 jcc
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
was follow the intent described in Judge Tinley's letter.
And if there's some consensus that we ought to follow that,
we can get with Jeannie and do the math and see what that is.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- one other thing on that,
and I think it was just the way it's probably just worded.
On the airport, it was a 10 percent reduction. Well, really,
it was a 20 percent swing. It was -- it's -- County went up
10, City went down 10, so it was a 20 percent change, not a
10 percent change, each year. It ended up at zero, and the
way I think the proposal that I saw -- got coming back from
Todd was only getting 50 percent of that captured. I think
it was probably the wording in the letter from the Judge.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's a difference there
in pretty significant dollars.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the City's share would
decrease by 20 percent each year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: After -- after this current budget
year. Not beginning this current budget year, but -- this
upcoming budget year, but after that. And -- and it is the
assumption that -- that on animal control, we net out the
revenue.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then, in essence, this -- what
8-6-08 jcc
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
would otherwise be the City's contribution would be cut in
half this coming year after doing that?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I --
JUDGE TINLEY: Was that the intention?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: The intent that I did here was
that we -- I didn't net out anything, obviously.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you didn't have the numbers,
~ but, I mean --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And didn't take out Ingram, but
I just -- I looked at the total, and trying to get down to
zero, and I just put arbitrarily the County at 200,000, City
at 142. There was no magic. I just kind of tilted it so the
County was paying more of that portion. Because in the past,
it wasn't -- last year, I think it was the other way around a
little bit. Maybe it was the same.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're correct,
Judge, in that our -- at least my understanding was we took
-- we took the net operational cost, and we identified the
City's previous contribution or the current contribution.
JUDGE TINLEY: As per the existing contract.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir.
JUDGE TINLEY: And then cut that in half.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And reduced the City's
contribution or commitment by 50 percent this coming budget
year, and the remaining 50 percent the second budget year,
s-6-os jcc
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
forthcoming.
MR. HOFMANN: Council members, that was the logic
we followed when we recommended our budget. That's how we
got that -- that $62,000 number.
MR. COLEMAN: Let me come back and explore this
third year thing. Jonathan, look at your schedule. If you
look at that fifth year out, let's just assume that there's
100 grand worth of revenue. Assume that y'all were,
ballpark, a million and we were 780.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to affect the both
of us; revenue's going to come off both sides.
MR. COLEMAN: Just reducing. But if you come -- if
you come to your fourth year, there's a slight difference
there, and not a lot of difference. And if you come to your
second or your third year -- your first, second, third year,
it's all basically break-even. I mean, it's the same amount.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. COLEMAN: I guess my point is, if we move that
fifth year up to the third year, it's really not costing you
guys that much future money.
MAYOR BOCK: In other words, expedite the process?
Let's do it a three-year phase-in? I -- that's good.
MR. COLEMAN: It's really more -- and it is simply
down to two areas we have to worry about.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I don't have a problem
a-6-os ~~~
59
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
talking about moving the -- yeah, you're talking the two --
yeah, I understand what you're saying. I don't have any
problem with that at all. I think what we need to do, if
that's the direction both bodies want to take, then we turn
and see what it really looks like. Because our numbers could
be -- there could be a pretty big swing in my numbers.
MR. COLEMAN: And, intuitively, I don't think it
would be. I agree it would be prudent to do that, but I
think it would come up right close.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would be prudent to have
correct numbers to go forward with. (Laughter.)
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Commissioner.
MR. COLEMAN: Don't y'all beat up on him.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean, to me,
the most important thing really is to philosophically just
ask where we're going. We did it for the City to have the
library, us to have the other two, animal control and
airport, from a funding responsibility standpoint.
MR. COLEMAN: And to me, Mack's analysis still
bothers me. In my execution of my responsibility to the city
residents, I just -- I do -- I am concerned that we're --
we're not doing enough for them, and if we were able to do
this, I would -- I would feel a lot better about it,
8-6-08 jcc
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
personally. 'Cause I know that we can't -- we can't wave a
magic wand and have it total parity.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jeannie thinks my numbers are
way off.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you're spending a million
dollars for one fire truck a year, that's a little
overspending, I believe.
MR. HAMILTON: We would appreciate your telling us
how to reduce our costs.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you don't have four
fire stations, for one. Excuse me, I'm sorry.
MR. COLEMAN: But I -- I think we're pretty close
to something there, myself. You guys agree or disagree?
MR. HAMILTON: I don't know what to say, because I
-- the numbers aren't the right numbers, so I'm -- I'm back
at ground zero, I suppose.
MS. HARGIS: I don't think we can take a $100,000
jump, either, not for this year.
MR. COLEMAN: Say that again, Jeannie?
MS. HARGIS: Jumping to the fifth year might be
pretty tough on us this year.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we go to the fifth year in
three years.
MR. COLEMAN: Yeah. We do the phase-in over three
years.
a-6-os ~~c
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
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: From this year.
MS. HARGIS: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: And in year three, it would come out
with the intent that we have in year five over here.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's worth looking at. I think
you look at it both in the fifth year phase-in and three-year
phase-in with the real numbers.
JUDGE TINLEY: Looking at these numbers, the animal
control's going to drop off the second year. The third year
you'd be absorbing the 88,000 up there with the airport,
because you've -- the phase-out of animal control would have
already occurred.
MS. HARGIS: Let me state that the revenue from
animal control is not very much.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they know that, yeah. It's
still -- the practice has been to net it out and to go on
that basis.
MR. COLEMAN: And, again, I don't think it's going
to have that big of an impact. Again, I think we'd -- all
we'd be doing is achieving something sooner, rather than
later, and that works for all of us in terms of eliminating
all the various steps that we have to negotiate every year.
And when we've got the airport done, then we'll be there.
MAYOR BOCK: Well, I guess, Chuck, that leads me to
8-6-08 jcc
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
one of my questions. When we're looking at the airport here,
we're -- the airport is a --
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MAYOR BOCK: We're breaking down the airport into
the same three-year phase-in, is that correct?
MR. COLEMAN: Mm-hmm.
MAYOR BOCK: And staying with the City and the
County both pay 50 percent of capital improvements?
MR. COLEMAN: Right. That's kind of off this --
that's off record -- that's off negotiation, 'cause we're 50
percent owners, and we just keep it that way. That's never
been something we've had to consider in the past, anyway.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'd like to look at the
numbers both with a three-year and a five-year phase-in and
see what the difference is with accurate numbers in there,
because I -- you know, if it doesn't have a huge budget
impact, three is certainly better. But I want to see what
the impact is, and to both. I mean --
JUDGE TINLEY: With real numbers.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we need to get the real
numbers in there.
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Net it out. And, you know, if
I would have gone to another file at my office, I could have
found the airport proposed budget, but I didn't. Like I
8-6-08 jcc
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
said, I was told to go to bed, so I didn't do that. So, I
used last year's numbers for the airport, and we have the
real numbers.
MR. HOFMANN: They're awfully close.
MR. HAMILTON: You're good on the airport.
JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, take note that Jon is --
he's in good health and doesn't appear to be injured in any
manner. It might be well that his wife tells him to go to
bed at the appropriate time.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't understand. The
reason I was told to go to bed was, the light in my office
was keeping Sam up and he wasn't going to bed. That was the
problem. She couldn't care less about me going to bed.
MAYOR BOCK: As we look at this on the library, I
know this phases out to a -- roughly a flat $200,000 in
2010-2011. We need to also look at that, I think, Council,
on how that's going to -- that's -- that would put us in a
one-year fiscal disadvantage. Is that right, Paul? Am I
looking at that --
MR. HOFMANN: Well, again, not to belabor, you're
at a fiscal disadvantage in '09 with these numbers.
MAYOR BOCK: Right.
MR. HOFMANN: By about $80,000. But after --
MAYOR BOCK: Are you talking about total, globally,
or are you talking --
s-6-os ~~~
64
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HOFMANN: I'm talking about total, yes, sir.
MAYOR BOCK: Okay. Different from what you
budgeted -- what we have started in the budget process?
MR. HOFMANN: Uh-huh.
MAYOR BOCK: An additional $80,000.
MR. HOFMANN: Because of the animal control number.
And I recognize that --
MAYOR BOCK: Well, okay.
MR. HOFMANN: -- the numbers need to be refined,
but it probably won't be refined a lot, if I follow the
discussion.
MR. HAMILTON: What is the reason -- you know, I
can understand fuel, but how much of animal control's budget
could the fuel be?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We added personnel. Personnel
increases. And we also -- in the past, we were being donated
all the food, and that's no -- that was taken off. It's lots
of little things that hit this year. There's no new vehicles
in it; there's no equipment or capital improvements. It's
just -- it's -- there is a proposed -- I think everyone is
probably aware of it; the County has proposed an
across-the-board 10 percent salary increase for employees.
Actually, I think it was in the paper.
MR. HOFMANN: I think it would be appropriate for
me to point out that in the past, at least for as long as
8-6-08 jcc
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I've been here, when the City would propose funding
contributions from the County for services provided by the
City -- airport, library, EMS, or fire -- and we would use
those funding formulas, we would always be careful to say and
implement that we were holding the County harmless for any
increases that following fiscal year if we were adding staff,
if we were adding to salaries. We always based those
formulas on what we call a base budget, without those
increases. And I just point out that factor to the City
Council, that that's always how we have approached that.
There was always discussion about staff costs and salary
increases, but those funding formulas never put that burden
for a future budget on the County. That was consistently the
way we approached that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand what you're
saying. So that whenever you came and the new fire
department -- new station wasn't open, that none of that cost
is attributed into the budget?
MR. HOFMANN: It is for fiscal -- it is for fiscal
'09. But --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay.
MR. COLEMAN: One-year lag basis.
MAYOR BOCK: And the library, too.
MR. COLEMAN: The impact doesn't hurt.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some impact.
8-6-08 jcc
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR BOCK: We did that mid-year implementation.
MR. HOFMANN: And Josh is reminding me, your
example on fire stations and Fire Station 4, fire -- your
funding formula has nothing to do with how many firefighters
we have or how many stations we have. It has -- we're
allocating the cost of the service we provide. That is one
truck.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fire was a bad example.
MR. HOFMANN: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let's see where we are here.
MR. HOFMANN: Or good example, depending on the
point you're trying to make.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need the accurate numbers based
on this model on the animal control, the -- the -- basically,
the formula that was spelled out in my letter of June 16 of
50 percent of what the allocated net cost of animal control.
But we need the accurate numbers to crunch for a three-year
goal and a five-year goal here. I guess my question is, how
long will that take?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't take long at all.
JUDGE TINLEY: Let me tell you where I'm coming
from. Can we recess this meeting until later this afternoon?
Tomorrow sometime? I think we've got a 24-hour -- don't we
have a 24-hour drop-dead?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't they meet tomorrow?
8-6-08 jcc
67
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
JUDGE TINLEY: So, we can come back and look at
those and maybe get these issues resolved.
MR. GROSS: Could we do that in an hour?
MAYOR BOCK: Judge, we're posted, actually,
tomorrow. If -- if this afternoon didn't work, I know if you
have 24 hours, we actually are -- are posted -- is that
right? -- for tomorrow to discuss --
MR. COLEMAN: For City/County.
MAYOR BOCK: City/County, so we would be good
either way.
JUDGE TINLEY: As an action item?
MAYOR BOCK: As a --
MR. HOFMANN: I don't know that it's posted for
action, but we could get your direction.
MAYOR BOCK: On Thursday?
MR. COLEMAN: And the recess thing works, too.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recess works. That way
it's action.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we recessed until right
before that meeting, then give time to get the numbers put
together, and y'all are going to meet anyway.
MAYOR BOCK: We're going to be together tomorrow
morning anyway.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's in the morning?
8-6-08 jcc
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR BOCK: 8:30.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're doing ours this
afternoon. (Laughter.)
~I MR. MOTHERAL: Buster doesn't want to get up at
8:30.
MR. GROSS: I don't think it's unreasonable to
break for a couple of hours. Shouldn't take that long.
JUDGE TINLEY: If it can be done in two hours,
Scott, I'm with you.
MR. GROSS: How long would it take you to do it?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm available to come back.
Let's come back.
MR. COLEMAN: Our session is a discussion with
regard to operational funding.
(Low-voice discussion off the record.)
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do it today.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get it over with.
JUDGE TINLEY: I think both of us are posted for
action today to nail these down if we can.
MR. GROSS: An hour?
MR. SELLECK: We've got to get back to the offices,
crunch the numbers together, and then --
MR. GROSS: I've got a pencil.
MR. SELLECK: Hour and a half? It's the accuracy
8-6-08 jcc
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
of the numbers. If y'all are comfortable just seeing
formulas and plugging in some -- some dummy numbers for now,
and then you want to vote on formulas and plug in --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather have the numbers.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get the numbers.
MR. HOFMANN: The outstanding number is animal
control, right?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the only one?
MS. HARGIS: The EMS one?
MR. HOFMANN: No, we know the EMS. EMS is --
JUDGE TINLEY: The net deficit. You know what?
This is pretty close.
MR. HOFMANN: We know what that is.
JUDGE TINLEY: And we got the airport budget.
MR. HOFMANN: I think we've got good, solid numbers
on everything except animal control.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'm close on the library,
I'm close on EMS, I'm close on the airport.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, you are. Yes, within --
MR. GROSS: Call the office and get the animal
control numbers.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All we have to do is get the
net revenues, deduct those on the proposed budget.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And move it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And Ingram, pull Ingram out
8-6-08 jcc
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: Why don't -- why don't -- what's the
thought about recessing, say, till 2:30?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that would work.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge? Can I mention one
thing real quick to Councilman Hamilton? I noticed a while
ago that Jonathan mentioned about the County trying to do a
10 percent for all county employees; you kind of shook your
head and looked a little like that's a little wild. I would
like to make one comment to that, okay?
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that that -- that's on
our agenda.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can make it in private to
him later.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's not on our agenda.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, would it be
appropriate to advise council of our action with respect to
the reverse notification system and the cost, just so
everybody hears what the cost is?
JUDGE TINLEY: When we go into recess, if everybody
will sit in place for another 60 seconds, that might work.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: How does that sound?
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like it's doable.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioners Court will be in
8-6-08 jcc
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
recess until 2:30.
MAYOR BOCK: City Council will take a recess until
2:30 also.
(Recess taken from 1:40 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.)
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order for
i
our joint meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and
Kerrville City Council. We've got some new figures we're
looking at here. What you see is a three-, four-, and
five-year phase-in. These are going the wrong direction for
me to -- they're not going the same direction as the -- as
the others. You're going down, you're not going over, right?
Okay.
MR. SELLECK: Would y'all like me to go through one
of these and walk you through how we worked it? And then
that should apply to the rest.
JUDGE TINLEY: I would.
MR. SELLECK: We built this similar to how
Commissioner Letz had built his original spreadsheet, since
that was the one we dealt with the most. And, again, you
have Fire, EMS, Library, Airport, Animal Control on the
left-hand side of the three-year phase-in. We show fiscal
year '08; that's current budget year, but then the first year
where we begin the phase-in is FY '09. You can see on a
three-year, we actually kept the library even. Air -- or,
8-6-08 jcc
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
sorry, library, with what we've talked about with the County,
going down to 400, City keeping the 419. Airport remains
even at 187 each. Animal Control uses the formula as
proposed in the Judge's letter. As of June 16th, Fiscal '10,
County reduces library to 300, City bumps to 519. Airport
gets reduced for the first time. Animal Control picks up
the -- the next phase of the phase-in. And for FY 'll, then
we see that -- we see that we're at the fifth year column, I
think Councilman Coleman referred to it, by FY 'll. We used
a similar phase-in for the four-year phase-in and the
five-year phase-in. What we tried to do with the bottom two
rows on each of these scenarios, we've given you a row that
represents the change from the prior year. You'11 notice in
most cases, FY '09 is a bit different than the FY '10
columns. FY '10 and '11, for most of these, should be even.
And FY '12 and '13, it depends on which phase-in scenario
you're at. We also give you a change from cumulative -- or a
change cumulative row. This shows you, by the end of the
five years, how much cumulatively has changed since FY '08.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Josh, on your numbers, on the
sums, did you add the fire in?
MR. HAMILTON: Yes, he did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what makes this
number -- I didn't add them in, 'cause that was kind of a
different --
8-6-08 jcc
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
MR. SELLECK: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because it wasn't something
coming from the city standpoint.
MR. HAMILTON: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this actually looks better
for both entities with the real numbers.
MR. HAMILTON: Mm-hmm.
MR. SELLECK: As far as inflation goes, we know
that on the fire contract, we talked about increasing it in
FY '10 by 3 percent and using the C.P.I., but in terms of
this type of analysis, we held inflation as a constant, and
as a result --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Simpler.
MR. HAMILTON: Kept the same total every year.
MR. SELLECK: Yes, sir.
MS. HARGIS: We tried it the other way, but it was
real distorted.
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you don't do it for all of
them, --
MR. SELLECK: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you shouldn't do it for any
of them.
MAYOR BOCK: Paul, if this were year '09 under
animal control, we budget 62,000?
8-6-08 jcc
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
MR. HOFMANN: Yep -- yes, sir. And that's the only
real difference.
MAYOR BOCK: Okay.
MR. MOTHERAL: So, we're 30,000 different.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
MS. HARGIS: I tried to fix that, but I couldn't
get it.
JUDGE TINLEY: No, that was based on last year's
number, wasn't it, Paul?
MR. HOFMANN: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's what I thought, yeah.
MR. SELLECK: This doesn't add revenues. They
still --
MR. HAMILTON: And, of course, in looking at this
very narrow, we're ignoring 1.2 --
(The reporter asked Mr. Hamilton to speak louder.)
MR. HAMILTON: We're ignoring 1.2 million, just as
shown here, which is the nonrecurring one being on here for
-- in FY '09 to '10.
MR. COLEMAN: The capital portion.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. COLEMAN: And, Josh, again, the only real
changes to these schedules, especially the top one, is the
fire was not previously added in. We've added that in now.
So, to kind of come back to our first schedule, we could back
8-6-08 jcc
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
off the amount of the fire from the total and kind of see
where we're at.
MR. SELLECK: Yes.
MR. COLEMAN: And the amount of the animal control
revenue, but otherwise, it's apples and apples.
MR. SELLECK: Yep.
MR. COLEMAN: I still think it looks good for year
three.
MR. HAMILTON: Maybe we can do a two-year phase-in.
MR. COLEMAN: Well --
MR. MOTHERAL: I told you.
MS. HARGIS: Now, Mack.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mack, I told -- I told you when I
asked for a four, just to have another option, I stayed
within the window, if you'll remember, of the three and the
five.
MR. MOTHERAL: And on the airport, are we still
contemplating the fifty-fifty on C.I.P. portion?
JUDGE TINLEY: Capital, yes. 'Cause we remain --
MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- joint owners.
MR. MOTHERAL: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the five-year better.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too.
MR. HAMILTON: Well, any of them give the City a
8-6-08 jcc
76
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
problem in current fiscal year.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gives you a problem for
I what?
MR. HAMILTON: For FY '09, any one of the three.
MR. COLEMAN: But, now, Jonathan, if you take, say,
in year one, 1,137,000 for you guys and back off that 180,
we're much closer to a parity there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, we're 900,000 versus --
MR. COLEMAN: And the same thing for year two and
three. I mean, that --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. COLEMAN: That does come back -- it's a lot
closer. We're talking fairly small bucks, I think, and we
can all be heroes and get this thing fixed, with no further
issues for debate.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: In five years.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, in three. (Laughter.) We can
be superheroes in three years.
MR. HAMILTON: If we made the City revenue-neutral
for '09, which is against the numbers the City's been using,
which is about a $30,000 change, and you used the three-year
phase-in, I think that's -- you know, at the end you can say,
you know, against my argument of disparity, what you've moved
is the total of the two numbers at the end. We've moved
134,000 plus 159. In other words, County's paying 134 more;
8-6-08 jcc
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
the City's paying 159 less, so you're really moved from the
numbers. We're looking at two hundred and --
JUDGE TINLEY: 95.
MR. HAMILTON: Close to $300,000.
MR. COLEMAN: That's a good point. Excellent
~ point.
MR. HAMILTON: And that's the way to look at it, I
think. And, you know, if the City were -- were -- if the
number for animal control for '09 were the 60 that the City's
using -- what are we using exactly, Josh?
MR. HOFMANN: 62.
MR. HAMILTON: So, if that were 62, then the
three-year phase-in is -- is a solid attempt towards removing
the disparity. I'd support that.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jeannie, where -- what's the
impact on the County, these numbers, on the current budget
for the County, the AR recommended?
MS. HARGIS: I don't know exactly what I have on
the airport. That's the only one we need to probably plug
in. But I used the 62,5 already as revenue, and that -- that
would -- and then I think I can use the 215,000. See, that's
less than --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're -- this is pretty
close within our -- I mean, within 30,000, 40,000 of what
we've got budgeted?
8-6-08 jcc
78
1
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: Which one of those are you looking
at, Ms. Hargis? Three, four or five?
MS. HARGIS: On the third one. I'm just looking at
the numbers in the County column of '09, which are the same
in all years.
JUDGE TINLEY: Are you looking at the three-year?
MS. HARGIS: Well --
MR. HAMILTON: Well, first one will be the same in
all of them.
MS. HARGIS: I'm just looking at what our charge
would be for '09, which would be the same in all three
columns -- the first column. In the second column, actually,
we go up on the airport higher.
MR. SELLECK: Let me -- on the three-year phase-in,
we assumed that the airport stays the fifty-fifty split for
Fiscal '09. Yeah, I'll call it clerical, if anything. It
wasn't fully intentional, but as we built the first one, we
kept it fifty-fifty, and then phased it in Fiscal '10 and
Fiscal 'll for three-year phase-in. When we moved down to
the four-year phase-in, the five-year phase-in, we actually
started the phase-in in Fiscal '9. But, again, the numbers
that -- that probably are most significant, though, are the
Change from Prior row, and the Change Cumulative row. That
actually showed the three-year phase-in with fiscal '09 to be
a bit more swallowable, I think for the County, at least. As
8-6-08 jcc
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
you move through years two and three, it would -- it's less
beneficial as compared to the four and five year.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that --
MR. SELLECK: Do you see what I'm saying?
JUDGE TINLEY: I know exactly what you're saying.
and the three-year is more of a level impact; 54, 40, and 40,
That's part of the --
that was part of the issue, trying to knock this out so
quickly. And, again, it wasn't intentional. It does provide
a nice level track in the three-year phase-in. You could do
the same thing in the four-year and the five-year, but it
would change the numbers from what we've shown here.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, actually, you get a decrease
in the second year in both four and five. You show a credit
actually in the -- in the -- for two years, and then in four
you get another big hit, 'cause it jumps 82. And in the
five-year, it jumps 65.
MR. SELLECK: That's the dynamic that's provided by
-- regardless of which schedule -- we kept the library on the
8-6-08 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
80
proposed schedule that the County had given us with 400, 300,
200, 200 level, so that's the dynamic that's arising out
I
of -- out of that part of the schedule, is what you just
talked about.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but that's occasioned by the
airport --
MR. SELLECK: Mm-hmm.
JUDGE TINLEY: -- being equal under '09 -- under
the three-year plan, but -- but the disparity in the '09 in
the four- and five-year phase-in.
MR. SELLECK: That's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm.
MR. COLEMAN: You know, the airport is a bit of an
unknown. Somebody mentioned during the break that it's
possible the airport -- airport costs could go down.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's what we're all hoping.
MR. COLEMAN: That's right. They can go up, but if
we've got a unified airport board taking control of that
operation out there, there's a chance that it could go down.
Coupled with the fact that you -- if you think that we're in
the bottom part of our economic slump and we're going to
begin to climb out of it and have more growth and development
out there...
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah, but I would suspect -- I would
suspect in the first year, there's going to be some overlap
8-6-08 jcc
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
between the city services, including the present Airport
Manager and the newly hired Airport Manager.
MR. COLEMAN: I agree with that. It would be a
transition.
MR. HAMILTON: None of that's in our budget, 'cause
I we haven't --
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right.
MR. HAMILTON: So that's -- I'd be very surprised
if the airport budget number for '09 --
MR. COLEMAN: No, I don't think for '09, but I do
think potentially for '10 and 'll, it's possible.
MR. HAMILTON: I like that.
MR. COLEMAN: And, Mack, back to what you were
saying earlier. You were basically saying this apparent
revenue or positive that the City is picking up, the 79,000,
in '09, you were willing to neutralize that?
MR. HAMILTON: No. What I'm saying is that the
numbers in here for the City, in our mind, are pretty much in
accordance with what we've budgeted, except for animal
control, which is 30,000 -- 31,000 over. And so if, for '09,
we made Animal Control the same as last year, 62,5, and if
you adopt that three-year, that seems to me a reasonable
proposition.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be a good horse trade from
the City.
s-6-os ~~~
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
MR. COLEMAN: Well, not only -- and I don't
disagree with that at all. That's a good point, coming back
and looking at it. I don't believe, if we look at it in
three years and only have two items to deal with --
MR. HAMILTON: Well, maybe -- maybe on the City
side, we need to just make a motion. I move the City accept
the three-year phase-in, with the revision that Animal
Control for '09 be 62,500 payment from the City to the
County. Anybody want to second?
MR. COLEMAN: I would second that without the
62,000, but as it just was presented.
MAYOR BOCK: Can I throw something in there? Is it
possible, then, if we -- we adopt -- we effectively adopt the
three-year phase plan, we leave '09 at 62, and we shift the
30K over in to FY '10?
MR. COLEMAN: I'm good with that. The number would
be the same. Calendar -- it's just timing.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure I'm good with
that. I mean, 'cause we have the same budget concern or
impact as you all do. I mean, we're not like we're flush
with money in the county.
MR. HAMILTON: No, I think we understand that.
But, you know, on the city services, one of the strikes that
I have we didn't really discuss. We've done our best to
reduce them. I mean, the airport's flat from prior year, EMS
8-6-08 jcc
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
25
is down, library is down. So -- and what we're seeing on
animal control is a significant increase. So, you know --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I hope you're not suggesting
we're not trying to keep that budget down under control.
We're just providing better service with more people, and we
got more certification and we have a lot better facility with
a lot more use. And I hope you're not suggesting that we're
trying to inflate those numbers, 'cause we're not.
MR. HAMILTON: Well, I'm pleased they've come down
from the prior numbers.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The numbers are what they
are, just like your numbers.
MR. COLEMAN: And I do know there's been a lot of
focus on the animal control for the last two or three years.
I know there's -- there's concern from the citizens. Back to
your original motion, if -- if we made it such that it was
for the three years, it might have a good shot. (Laughter.)
I was trying to think of a good way of saying that. I just
couldn't.
MR. GROSS: And you didn't.
MR. HAMILTON: Well, we got two other councilmen to
hear from, and the mayor, I suppose.
MR. MOTHERAL: Do we need to either second the
motion or -- or let it die before we discuss it?
MR. GROSS: Waiting to see what the mayor says.
8-6-08 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
84
MAYOR BOCK: If there was a second to that motion,
then we can -- we can discuss it. If it dies for lack of a
second, then --
MR. GROSS: I'll second it.
MAYOR BOCK: -- we move on.
MR. GROSS: I'll second it.
MAYOR BOCK: We have a motion and second. Any
further discussion?
MR. COLEMAN: Well, point of discussion. I would
like to offer an amendment, that we leave animal control as
it is. Although the point that you raise is an excellent
point. Just for the sake of simplicity and avoiding
complexity, in the concept, I'd rather just leave it out of
there and -- and go forward with the three-year phase-in as
it's presented. Would you accept an amendment such as that?
MR. HAMILTON: Sure.
MR. COLEMAN: Thank you.
MAYOR BOCK: We have an amendment to the motion.
Do we have a second?
MR. GROSS: I'll second it.
MAYOR BOCK: We have a second. Let's see. I need
to call for a vote on the amendment first; is that correct?
At this time, I'll call -- any further discussion? Any
further clarification at this time? I'll call for all in
favor of the amendment to the motion, raise your right hand.
8-6-08 jcc
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
85
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
MAYOR BOCK: All opposed?
(No response.)
MAYOR BOCK: Motion carries 5-0. The motion on the
floor is to proceed with the three-year phase-in as presented
by Josh for the City/County joint -- what did you call it,
Mack?
MR. HAMILTON: Shared services.
MAYOR BOCK: Shared services, thank you. We have a
motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor
of the motion, signify by raising hand?
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
MAYOR BOCK: All opposed?
(No response.)
MAYOR BOCK: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had a 3:15 appointment, didn't
you?
MR. GROSS: Yeah.
JUDGE TINLEY: We need to see what the Court's
going to do, then, right quick.
MR. GROSS: I'll be late.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that the
Commissioners Court accepts the three-year phase-in for the
shared services as presented.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second.
a-6-os ~~~
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
JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second that
the Court approve the three-year plan for City/County shared
service costs. Questions or discussion on the motion?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I expect -- I guess the
statement is, the intent is this is the plan for future --
for the next three years funding, just not a commitment, as
we're not allowed to do that, but it is a plan.
JUDGE TINLEY: Can't legally make that commitment;
we all understand that. Further question or discussion on
the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising
your right hand.
(The motion carried by unanimous vote.)
JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign.
(No response.)
JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you,
gentlemen. Any further business to come before the Court?
MR. COLEMAN: Thank y'all.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nay.
JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioners Court will be
adjourned.
MAYOR BOCK: Council will be adjourned.
(Joint County/City meeting adjourned at 3:13 p.m.)

87
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
STATE OF TEXAS ~
COUNTY OF KERR ~
The above and foregoing is a true and complete
transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as
County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County,
Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth.
DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 12th day of August,
2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
BY : ~~~ ~,~/G
Kathy B~nik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
8-6-08 jcc
ORDER NO. 30931
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT WITH CITY OF KERRVILLE FOR
GOVERNANCE OF AIRPORT
Came to be heard this the 6`~ day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Williams, seconded by Commissioner Letz. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the Interlocal Agreement for continued existence of the Joint
Airport Board, and provide management of the Kerrville/Kerr County
Airport as discussed and amended today (changing the one-year renewal
term to five-year renewal term, with the caveat the funding has yet to be
resolved, and with the caveat that the zoning issue has yet to be resolved by
the County).
ORDER NO. 30932
KERR COUNTY' S FY 08-09 CONTRIBUTION TO THE CITY/COUNTY
JOINTLY PROVIDED SERVICES
Came to be heard this the 6t~' day of August, 2008, with a motion made by
Commissioner Letz, seconded by Commissioner Baldwin. The Court
unanimously approved by vote of 4-0-0 to:
Approve the three-year phase-in plan for City/County shared services as
presented, including, but not limited to:
EMS
Fire Department
Library
Recycling Center
Animal Control
Airport