1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL
and
KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT
Joint Workshop
Friday, February 15, 2008
8:00 a.m.
KPUB Meeting Room
2250 Memorial Boulevard
Kerrville, Texas
Kerrville City Council:
EUGENE C. SMITH, Mayor
TODD A. BOCK, Mayor Pro Tem
MACK HAMILTON, Councilperson, Place 2
CHUCK COLEMAN, Councilperson, Place 4
PAUL HOFMANN, City Manager
Kerr County Commissioners Court
PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge
H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1
WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2
JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3
BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4
~~3
~C
~o
O
-~
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
February 15, 2008
PAGE
1.1 Presentation and discussion with City Council
and City staff with respect to operation and/or
funding of joint City/County projects, including,
but not limited to: EMS, fire department, library,
recycling center, animal control, and airport
1.2 Discussion and consideration of other potential
cooperative efforts, including, but not limited to:
health benefits program, road repair/rehabilitation/
seal coating, emergency services dispatch, airport
governance, broadband services, ETJ annexation issues,
economic development/concept presentation, and
discussion on W.A.R.N. (Wide Area Rapid Notification)
system
--- Adjourned
3
19
71
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 Friday, February 15, 2008, at 8:00 a.m., a joint
workshop of the Kerrville City Council and the Kerr County
Commissioners Court was held in the KPUB Meeting Room, 2250
Memorial Boulevard, Kerrville, Texas, and the following
proceedings were had:
P R O C E E D I N G S
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you for being here. Let me
call to order this joint workshop meeting of the Kerr County
Commissioners Court and the Kerrville City Council scheduled
and posted for this time and date and place, Friday,
February 15, 2008, at 8 a.m., here at the Kerrville Public
Utility Board meeting room. Mr. Mayor, do you want to take
over for the Council?
MAYOR SMITH: As Mayor, I wish to open this meeting
for the -- and call to order the Kerrville City Council for a
special joint meeting with Kerr County Commissioners Court.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. The first item on the
agenda is a presentation and discussion with the City Council
and City staff -- this is ours; of course, the reverse would
be true of the City's items -- with respect to operation
and/or funding of joint City and County projects, including,
but not limited to: EMS, Fire Department, Library, Recycling
Center, Animal Control, and Airport. Of course, each one of
these is a separate function and operation, so I think in the
past we've done them one at a time rather than one big mix.
2-15-08 jwk
4
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
So, why don't we go ahead and start with EMS, since that's
the first one on the list?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, I hope we have one.
JUDGE TINLEY: Good plan. Right, Buster?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hope we keep it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hope we keep it.
MR. HOFMANN: Judge Tinley?
MR. COLEMAN: Are you present today?
MR. HOFMANN: We don't have a specific -- specific
presentation planned. We're here to answer any questions you
might have. If you would like a brief overview of the
operation, we're happy to offer it. We're about -- we're
about four months into the fiscal year. The -- the County
and the City jointly contribute to the operation of the EMS
operation based upon a -- a formula that we have presented
to -- to this group a couple of times before, a formula that
takes into account system revenues. You remember, last year
we had a discussion about the -- the rates we charge for EMS
services, and after some discussion, again in this forum,
those -- those rates were increased for the fiscal '08
budget. And, again, we're not -- we're not prepared to
present specifics, but the operation's going well, and I know
revenues are coming in at least at budget. We have a lot of
customers for the EMS system. And if you would like for us
to answer any questions, we're certainly happy to. If we
2-15-08 jwk
5
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
can't answer them today, we'll come back. And I apologize;
if there was an expectation we were going to have a
presentation today, I wasn't aware.
JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that there was an
expectation of a presentation. It's just that these are one
of our major joint operations that -- that we jointly
participate in and provide funding for. I think we've had
one change since last year. I think the change which carved
out the northwest corner of -- part of the Y.O. Ranchlands
occurred not this immediate past fiscal year, but the year
prior to that, or maybe even before that. This past year, I
think there was a modification of the primary coverage area
of EMS down in the Comfort area with the Falling Water
Subdivision. Isn't that right, Jon?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's everything off Highway 87
north of Comfort.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: It was easier to define it that
way, even though it was driven by Falling Water. It was
pretty much all Kerr County property accessed off Highway 87
has Kendall County as primary responder, and Kerr County --
or Kerrville EMS is second. There's still coverage; they're
still responsible for it, but it's not as primary.
JUDGE TINLEY: And that just occurred this past
fiscal year?
2-15-08 jwk
6
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we pay for that -- we pay
$3,500, I think, to Kendall County, something like that, for
that. But, Judge, what I was kind of raising my hand about,
and based on what Paul said, it seems to me that -- I mean,
if there isn't a formal presentation, which I didn't expect
one really, a way to kind of jump into it in today's meeting,
we really almost need to -- due to a meeting that Mack and I
had, because that's kind of the nuts and bolts of this
meeting as to where we're going from here, last meeting Mack
and I were asked, I think, to do something. I'm not sure we
did what we were told to do, but we did something -- or Mack
primarily did something. And they -- they did an analysis,
and I'm sure they have some sort of a presentation of cost
allocation impact in the county and the city, looking at tax
dollars and where we're going with joint operations and
combining them and all. I met one time with Mack and Josh
Selleck. I didn't agree totally with the way their numbers
went, but I don't -- you know, it's a minor point, in my
mind.
I think the interesting point is that they have
come up with an overall feeling that -- and I don't disagree
with it, that city residents pay a higher percentage of some
offices -- of more services than non-city residents do. And
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25

I think it's not fair for us to get into a discussion on
numbers without our Auditor and our County staff looking
through it very thoroughly. I think -- but I don't disagree
with the direction, and also I support the recommendations.
I think -- and that's, I think, the key that Mack and I --
you know, we do agree on, that we need to look at some of
these things and where that goes.
And I think that the -- and I think if we can just
agree to look at some of these items, I think we'll be way,
way ahead. And I think we have been roadblocked looking at
specific issues in prior years. I think we need to look at
more of the big picture and who should be -- and this may
mean transferring some operations from one entity to the
other, relook at how we fund some of these operations and
things of that nature. I think that's a very good thing to
do. I'll let -- you know, if no one has any objection, it
makes a lot more sense for the County to kind of go into
that, which is a big topic area that I know Mack and Josh
spent a lot of time on, then go into that second item on the
2-15-08 jwk
8
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
agenda today, which is kind of more a couple new items.
Because I really -- you know, without a formal presentation,
I mean, we -- we'll go through the same discussion on every
item that we go through every year, and I think we need to
get past that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Do you have anything to add to that?
MAYOR SMITH: I'd like to mention one thing.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay.
MAYOR SMITH: I think, on EMS and fire department,
Chief -- I'm sure everybody knows -- in case they don't know,
Chief Holloway has retired, and I think we all -- the people
in Kerrville and Kerr County owe the chief a big thanks for
how he developed the EMS and the fire department. So,
Mark -- I understand Mark Beavers is -- is acting Fire Chief.
I don't know if he's over EMS both, too.
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, he is.
MAYOR SMITH: He is. So, Mark Beavers -- everybody
knows Mark, I'm sure. Stand up, Mark. So, he's acting Fire
Chief and EMS chief. He has some very large shoes to fill.
MR. BEAVERS: Large shoes. He's taller than me,
too, so -- (Laughter.)
MAYOR SMITH: Probably a better golfer, too.
MR. BEAVERS: Yeah.
MAYOR SMITH: But that's a temporary assignment,
because we're interviewing people to -- before the City
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
9
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't know if he's -- but
MR. HAMILTON: We'll hand out -- Josh, if you would
suggesting, I won't take you through the charts. You can
read them for yourself. If you take the services that you
might say the City does part of, the County does part of, in
some way they share and try to allocate the costs back, what
we've done is allocate the costs back, not to a government
entity, which is what the accounting system has been doing
for years. We've allocated the costs back to the individual
citizens of the city of Kerrville, or the individual citizens
who live outside the city. And when you do that, you get
very different numbers from what occurs when you look at the
government entity itself. And the reason for the difference
is that people outside the city pay county taxes, period.
End of subject.
People inside the city pay the same county taxes,
but in addition, they pay city taxes. So, any agreement
between the City and the County that says we will share
equally in the cost of something -- I'm using equal because
2-15-08 jwk
10
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the math is easier that way -- ends up, in effect, having
city residents pay for the same service three times what the
county residents pay, and these numbers take you through that
in detail. We believe the sources used are very solid. They
are published county budget data, published city budget data,
U.S. census numbers, and KCAD's tax certified rolls. Those
are the four sources. And if you start with those, you then
have to say, Let's look at the numbers, pull the revenues
out, and ask ourselves, what's the net cost to the taxpayer
by service? That's what we've done, and the charts will give
you that by services listed. We originally had had fewer
services; when we met with Jonathan, he suggested adding
some. We have done that.
But, I -- I think once you go through that, the
main conclusion that you come to is, we need to figure out a
way to relook at this and ask ourselves, what is fair and
equitable? And I would submit that in some cases, what we're
currently doing is not anywhere close to fair and equitable.
But I'll -- I'll let you have the numbers there. I agree
with Jonathan, absolutely, that the -- trying to move beyond
the numbers without first accepting some sort of analysis --
maybe not exactly this one -- doesn't make a lot of sense,
because we're going to find ourselves debating about, gosh,
we don't agree on the numbers. So, the first step in all of
this discussion is, let us agree or get closer to agreement
2-15-08 jwk
11
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
have been presented. We're giving you all the numbers.
We'll be glad to support you if you have questions and try to
take you through what we've done in any way possible.
Once we've done that, I'm sure we're going to come
~anreement nn conclusions. That's bound to be the
case. But once we've done that, it seems appropriate to try
to establish a joint City and County committee to look at
this and come up with some modifications that move us towards
fixing the problem, and that's what we're trying to
accomplish. So, this -- this is -- I think in the City's
feeling, this is just a first step, and that's all we're
trying to accomplish, but it does get us started. So -- and
you'll see an aggregate; I used the number 3-to-1 and equal
split. When you run the services down the line, we're
showing a number of about 3-to-1 overall, and that's the way
it is. Some services, we're saying, hey, that's 1-to-1,
because we pay the same. County Jail, for example, is
1-to-l, but other services are 3-to-l. And the numbers are
2-15-08 jwk
12
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
distorted, I will agree. The fire numbers, which shows up in
here as being something like 20-to-l, I'll set that aside. I
realize that's a difference there.
I don't know that -- so I think I'm -- what I'm
saying is, I'm basically agreeing with Jonathan; the first
step is on the County side to spend some time analyzing the
numbers. And we can agree to disagree; if you don't like our
numbers, I mean, that's okay too, but I think we should be
able to get there. Our data sources are all published,
public knowledge, and it's a matter, then, of just turning a
crank. And once we do that, the next step is, how do we
begin to solve the problem? And the reason for -- for
looking at it this way is just the point Jonathan made. If
you look at an individual service by service, you may get
some acceptable answer, but there's no certainty you'd get an
acceptable answer. And, so, what we're proposing is take a
look at it instead from the top down, rather than from the
bottom up. That's -- that's --
MAYOR SMITH: You know, the City was kind of guilty
library. They'd say, "This many city people use it and this
many county people," and they were overlooking the fact that
every city person was a county person, so it looked -- tilted
towards the city uses it many times more than the county.
But when you put city as county -- so, I've -- I've insisted
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
13
saying -- you know, I'm just using that as an illustration.
And the County was keeping their records the same way. They
were using -- they weren't considering city people as county
people, which they are. And I -- I'm sure everybody in this
room realizes city people are a member of Kerr -- members of
Kerr County also, or citizens of Kerr County.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think another reason, kind
of, I think it's a good time to look at this, I don't know of
any real contentious issues now -- between the two right now,
but a lot of the agreements that we operate under right now
were originally started in the early '80's -- for the most
part, during the '80's. And during that time, there was a
real difference between county government and city government
as to what -- the staffing, what we did, lots of different
areas. Since that time, city government certainly has grown,
but county government's probably grown a whole lot faster,
and we basically have the same type or equivalent department
heads or county elected officials to match everything the
City has. We have H.R. now; we have auditors. And, I mean,
it's pretty much -- they're very parallel staffed
governments.
And I think there's a -- I think that's -- it's an
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
14
important thing to be looking at long-term of where we're
going from here, because originally, the County wasn't
And prior to that, it really was, I mean, growing, but it was
not growing that fast. And subdivisions and all that have
really driven the county to really, probably, grow
government-wise a lot quicker than the city's grown in the
last 20 years, and I think that's a real -- that's an issue
when you go back to, how did we get to where we are today?
And I think it's a good time just to look at -- step back and
reevaluate how we do some of these operations.
JUDGE TINLEY: You had mentioned that this may be a
time to -- to consider certain functions being totally
assumed by one entity or the other, and others being assumed
by the other entity. In your discussions with Councilman
Hamilton, have there -- have there been any of those
discussions underway?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: We've -- we've talked about, I
think, that opportunity, the opportunity of changing funding
mechanisms, operations of -- I hate to use the -- to say it,
but working together more. I mean, it's kind of all of the
above. It depends on what you look at. It looks -- I think,
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
15
particular --	actually, we	did	as well	-- Streets	Department,
the streets.	Our -- your	city	streets,	our Road	and Bridge,
lot more opportunity for those two departments to work
together, and they historically haven't worked together.
Some things like -- you know, I'll use one of the ones that's
not, is Animal Control. That's one that Mack -- and I don't
disagree -- I think, feels that the -- you know, it's one
that the County probably can handle -- we do it now, but
maybe we should pay for the whole thing. So, there's lots --
lots of things that are on the table.
And another thing that I think needs to be on the
table is sales tax. Who gets -- who, right now -- and I
gets the sales tax, and then it's paid out on city projects.
Well, you know, if -- so you -- that has to be put in the
mix, too. And I don't really know how you do that real
easily, because you start getting into state laws and all
these other issues as to how that's done. Originally, the 4B
sales tax wasn't -- I think it's 4B; is that the one? Yeah,
I see -- and it was not included, and now it is included, and
that was at my request. And we discussed that those are
dollars that would -- or a large part be paid by somebody out
of, you know, a governmental -- probably the City; if they
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
16
weren't coming out of that special fund, they'd come out of
So, I think that you have to look at -- everything
has to be on the table from being just a -- how you look at
funding sources, who operates entities, working jointly maybe
on different things, or same. I think all that should be on
the table, because I think if you can -- if you can get past,
you know, some agreement at that level, then you can start
looking at individual departments.
MAYOR SMITH: One thing that used to hit me, when
you're analyzing something that you're doing, somebody always
says, "Well, we've always done it that way." I think we need
to ignore the historical way of doing things and analyze it
fresh. But if you're going to go in, "Well, we always did it
that way," you're really not going to get anywhere. So, I
think we need to start, kind of like day one, and figure out
what is equitable. And -- and I'm sure the City does not
want to have one-upsmanship on the County, and I figure the
Judge feels the same way. We have to figure out what is
equitable.
2-15-08 jwk
17
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: What's fair and equitable.
MAYOR SMITH: We all represent the citizens of
Kerrville and Kerr County, so we have to ignore historical --
and I'm sure the two guys that are looking at this are pretty
good at doing their own evaluation. There's two hard-nosed
guys that are doing it, and I'm sure they will analyze it in
very great detail.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: May not agree, but we analyze.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. Well, that's fine.
Disagreement is not bad. I don't -- disagreement allows
the -- the route to proper conclusions.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, you know, to me, if we
can come up with some -- if everyone is somewhat in agreement
that this is a worthwhile exercise, you know, timeline is the
next step, and then I think we can probably move on. I mean,
I think, you know, Mack said no one at the County other than
myself has looked at these numbers, and while I'm a decent
number cruncher, I certainly want to put it over to our
professional staff that does the number crunching for the
County and see if they concur with the numbers. And then
after that, I think, you know, whether we do it now or do it
at our individual meetings, appoint a group larger than Mack
and myself.
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. Whatever we decide will be
wrong. (Laughter.)
2-15-08 jwk
18
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And --
JUDGE TINLEY: Which you knew that going in, didn't
you?
MR. HAMILTON: Well, of course we did. Of course
I we did.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, you know, figure out where
we should go, and at least meet and look at that one issue.
And maybe it will be a very short-tenured committee, or maybe
very long-term.
MR. HAMILTON: I think we've -- I agree with
Jonathan; I think we've got lots of opportunity here. This
is -- if we back away from the specifics, we can improve what
we're doing for the citizens. I believe that.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, let's talk about the remainder
of this agenda item. With what we've got in the mix and in
play right now, we're kind of hung on a hook, so to speak.
But does any member of the Council or the Court have anything
they want to pitch out on the table with regard to these
various functions that we currently have joint operation and
funding responsibilities for?
MR. COLEMAN: I think -- I just want to reiterate,
I thank Mack, along with Jonathan -- I think especially
Mack -- for coming up with this perspective. I think it's
really good. It's helping all of us see for the first time
kind of through the -- through the woods and trees, and have
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
19
a broader perspective. I think Jonathan's exactly right; I
think it's a starting point that we -- we look at all of
these shared services globally. That's the only thing that
makes sense. And to the extent that we can do that, I think
everybody will do that, so I support both -- both those guys.
JUDGE TINLEY: Well, certainly, the end result that
we're all hoping to achieve is to -- we both basically serve
the same -- at least I serve the -- all of your constituents,
as well as others, and if the end result is we can more
want to sit here two hours saying the same thing we've said
at every one of our meetings. I think we need -- we have a
two-member committee that's working on it. Maybe we need
more people, but I think just the presentations without any
solutions, that's what we've been doing. I think we need a
committee that looks for solutions, and I think we have two
good guys working on it right now. Maybe if they need help
or something like that, I'm sure that -- that there's
resources that would be available to them.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go ahead and move to
en. Discussion and consideration of other
potential cooperative efforts, including, but not necessarily
2-15-08 jwk
20
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
limited to, health benefits program, road repair,
rehabilitation, and sealcoating, emergency services dispatch,
airport governance, broadband services, ETJ annexation,
economic development, and -- and the Wide Area Rapid
Notification system. We probably got the airport issue off
the table for now, because we're all waiting on the -- the
study.
MAYOR SMITH: Waiting, waiting.
JUDGE TINLEY: The study by TexDOT that we're
somewhat frustrated that we've not yet seen, and are waiting
on. The ETJ, have we got anything active on that at this
particular point in time?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I put on it there for kind of
two reasons. The -- I think the county -- there are areas --
I don't know how the whole Court feels about it -- areas
around Kerrville that I think need to be seriously looked at
at being annexed. They're not big areas. One of the areas
is -- and the only reason it's on the agenda, it's been a
little bit of a thorn in my side for a good amount of time
this year, is Roy Street. You know, it's one of those
streets -- it's a lower income area right in the middle of
Kerrville. Roy Street is the road where you come out of the
old Tivy High School at the stoplight on the north side,
straight across. One would think that's city. No, that's
county. And it's -- I think the first hundred yards or so is
2-15-08 jwk
21
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
in the city, then it turns into the county. It's small lots,
But some of those areas like that, Kerrville South
area where we've done the wastewater sewer project, some of
those areas, I'd just like to get on the table the City
looking at annexing some of these -- I mean, some of these
areas like that. It doesn't make sense, in my mind, for the
City to go out and annex Comanche Trace, annex some of these
things -- financially, I understand, it makes a lot of sense
to do it, but there's some of these areas that are not as, I
guess, financially attractive for the City to annex that I
wish they -- I think they need -- need to be done. It's just
-- I think Roy Street's probably the most clear example, in
my mind, 'cause it's surrounded by the city on four sides --
well, three sides; can't get four sides, but it's a little --
goes out towards the interstate, and with the Holdsworth
project and that area being developed, it's going to be
almost completely surrounded. And there's a few other areas
like that that I really think need to be on -- you know, I'd
like to get some discussions going on that and see if that's
even a possibility. And maybe there's some grants that the
County can do to help upgrade projects there, and then get it
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
22
into the city. I mean, working together, possibly.
ETJ issue -- and this kind of goes to subdivisions.
I'm not so sure the system that we negotiated is working. In
fact, I don't think it's working. We have had two developers
come to the County kind of after working through our new
system that we created where the City handles the ETJ issues,
both of them irate. I've had to -- I've had -- been -- I
won't say four-letter words been used at me on both of them,
but close to it. Very angry developers that have just felt
they've been given the runaround. They did what they were
told to do by the City, and the County's saying, you know,
"We're not going to do that; that's not what the rules -- not
what the agreement was." So, I think that needs to be
relooked at. One thing that I didn't really think of during
the -- and I was part of the original negotiations, the -- I
never really thought about the Environmental Health
Department's role in this. We haven't helped developers a
bit. If they're in the ETJ, they still have to go through
the county Environmental Health Department.
So, right -- you know, and the whole purpose of
that law was to have, so to speak, one-stop shopping. It
doesn't work. All the plats still have to come to the
county -- into the county system, and so now we have a system
of -- a city system having to work with the county system,
and they're not used to -- I mean, it's -- it's problems.
2-15-08 jwk
23
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
They have a whole -- our Environmental Health Department has
a whole set of subdivision rules and laws that they have to
look at and approve every plat. The information that has to
be on that plat is different than subdivision rules say,
necessarily, and it's causing a -- a problem there. I know
our County Attorney spends a lot of time on this stuff
working with them. And, in fact, Commissioner Oehler's
liaison with that department. So, I think it's a -- I don't
think we've done a real good job fixing that, and I intend to
put it on the next Commissioners Court agenda to give notice
of canceling our agreement and going back to the drawing
board. There's got to be a better way. We have not helped
the developers, and we haven't helped my life, and I think we
have not accomplished the goal of -- of doing that, and I
just want to put that back on the table. I think we just
need to relook at that.
MAYOR SMITH: This item has several different
disciplines here. And, like the road repair, we have a very
capable Aggie over here that takes care of the roads for the
County, and we have a good Aggie that takes care of the roads
for the City, and it seems like those people should get
together and -- and decide what needs to be done in that
particular discipline. Now, we have gotten together on one
2-15-08 jwk
24
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
item that's listed here, economic development. There was an
economic development committee that was created that worked
jointly, and they did a fine job. I think we need to do the
same thing on all the disciplines here, like health benefits.
We have people that handle that, and you have it, and I think
we both use consultants, or either -- the same consultant,
but we ought to be able -- there's debates whether adding
more people will help you financially or not, so we need to
analyze that, and I think we ought to assign it to the proper
City person and the proper County person to come in and see,
with the aid of the consultant. I hate to say consultants.
MR. HOFMANN: Mayor, if I might, you already have,
and that is well under way.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. Well, I'm just stating --
MR. HOFMANN: If you'd like a report on it, that
I would be fine.
MAYOR SMITH: And, you know, on broadband services,
I guess that's under the Sheriff or -- or whoever it's under.
But, anyway, it seems like every one of these disciplines, we
should assign them to the proper people and have them meet
and come back with a recommendation as soon as possible.
JUDGE TINLEY: The -- the health benefits aspect,
as Mr. Hofmann just said, there was a meeting, what, two or
three weeks ago, probably, Paul?
MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir.
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
25
JUDGE TINLEY: And it involved your H.R. and
development, as you mentioned, we've been pretty hard at that
for about a year and a half, and just both jointly approved a
resolution adopting the plan that was finally rolled out last
month, and we've now called for the establishment of a
committee to work on the incentives aspects, and that's under
way. The -- to my knowledge, there have been some
go along and keep those discussions going so that we might
see if there's some way that we can create some efficiencies
by -- we've got a -- we've got considerably better capability
with the equipment that we have, that we might be of
considerable benefit to you folks in some of your street
rehabilitation programs, and that's what I've encouraged
those discussions to look at. And I don't know where they
are, but I know they've been talking. I've been told they've
been talking.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, the point I was trying to make,
we all have staffs that have expertise -- expertise in each
2-15-08 jwk
26
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of these fields. Instead of five guys from the County and
five guys from the City trying to resolve these issues, I
think we need to rely on our staffs to make recommendations
for a decision by this group. I don't think this group can
work the problem. We have people and staffs that will work
the problem, but we can sit here all day long on both 1 and
2, or Item 3 and 4, and never come to any satisfactory
conclusion until our experts present something that would be
mutually beneficial to both parties. That's the only point.
JUDGE TINLEY: That's why we've got them on board,
ii Mr. Mayor.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, that's right.
JUDGE TINLEY: To care of those functions.
MAYOR SMITH: Right.
MR. HOFMANN: Just to quickly follow up on the
question you just asked, on what the Mayor just said, the
question you just asked was, you weren't sure where they
were. There -- and just for everyone's benefit, we're not
far. There's been enough discussion, I think, based upon the
work that Mr. Hamilton has led, to look at the numbers, I
think, where we can be reasonably sure that there's a lot of
room for opportunity here, especially, but perhaps not only,
on the -- on the street maintenance and street reconstruction
side. And to follow up on what the Mayor was just saying, I
think all we need some consensus direction that -- that makes
2-15-08 jwk
27
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
sense, and -- and let the appropriate people put the details
together, and we'd be happy to do that and report back as to
what that might look like.
MAYOR SMITH: Mr. Mosty made a comment on our
economic report, and he said we come out with studies, but
nobody ever follows through. Now, when we get
recommendations, I'm going to be out of here, so I'm quitting
my job. That's not a very nice thing for me to do, but I
have -- want to do some things myself. But when we decide
what needs to be done, we need to carry through and implement
it instead of just talking about it every year.
MR. HAMILTON: Which I suppose is what we need to
do, is be handling this meeting and saying, okay, here's an
item that was brought up; who's going to be assigned to do
something about it? And I heard Jonathan mention Roy Street
as an example, and are we going to do anything about it?
MR. BOCK: Mack, say again?
MR. HAMILTON: Are we going to do anything about
it? I heard Jonathan mention Roy Street as an example. Is
anybody going to do anything about it?
MR. HOFMANN: Well, if --
MR. HAMILTON: Anybody going to take an action item
to do something?
MR. HOFMANN: If --
MAYOR SMITH: Well, that's all ETJ.
2-15-08 jwk
28
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MR. HAMILTON: But I noticed a silence. I think
I've made my point, gentlemen. Okay?
MR. HOFMANN: If your question -- if your
~ question --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That is a complete City
issue. County has nothing to do with annexing Roy Street in
the city, and so that's something the City needs to take care
of. We have no jurisdiction. We're taking care of it now as
far as the roads go and O.S.S.F.
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, you know --
MR. HAMILTON: It requires City cooperation; it's
not a complete City issue. It's county property now, as
Jonathan correctly pointed out.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: City's the only one that can
annex it, though.
MR. HAMILTON: That's correct. And the County then
would want to come to the City and start working with the
City to try to accomplish that, if -- if that's the County's
objective.
MR. HASTINGS: Absolutely. From my point of view,
if you guys can give us the list that are of the greatest
concern, we'll develop -- you know, there is that overall
caution that there's a reason Roy Street's not in the city to
start with. I mean, we run into that reason throughout.
2-15-08 jwk
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
minutes ago is the first time I heard it. And annexing that
property is ultimately a City Council decision, and if the
City Council would like your staff to evaluate and analyze
what it would take to annex that area, or any other area,
it'll come down to basically a math question. There's a lot
of things to consider -- legal, financial, policy -- when you
talk about annexing an area, especially a developed area.
And your -- I'm addressing my comments directly here to the
-- to the Council. If you would like your staff to come back
and analyze that and make some recommendations about that,
we're more than happy to do that. That's -- that's simple.
I didn't know of the specific concern. Now that that concern
has been raised, we're happy to look at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- being kind of both.
I think what Mack's saying, and I agree with it, is, you
know, if annexation of certain areas like Roy Street is an
important issue to the County, which it is to me, and if the
Council agrees it needs to be looked at, someone needs to be
appointed to look at it.
MR. HAMILTON: Absolutely.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's -- you know, and
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
30
'cause it's in my precinct. I'm sure Commissioner Williams
street. I mean, do it all at once. Let's figure out where
the areas are and look at the annexation plan. And this --
and the annexation plan for the city, which I know is
certainly public, does impact subdivisions and ETJ issues,
because it's kind of the next step, and I think those have to
be considered. So, I kind of look at all of that, and that's
why I wrote it on here, ETJ annexation/subdivision. That's
all one issue, in my mind.
MR. HOFMANN: I might add some clarity here. The
phrase "annexation plan" has a certain meaning in state law.
And if I overstep, Mike will bring me back, but -- and I'm --
I just want to make sure we're all on the same page and we're
careful about the use of that phrase, "annexation plan." And
the truth is, the City of Kerrville doesn't have an
annexation plan, as described by state law. In fact, what
we've published is that we don't have an annexation plan.
Not to go into too much detail, what that specifically speaks
to is annexation of developed areas. And today, as we sit
here -- and this could change, given the appropriate policy
2-15-08 jwk
31
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
conversations with. our Planning and Zoning Commission, and
there's been discussion with the Comprehensive Plan Update
Committee that as they work through larger planning issues
and as they work through population projection issues, which
is what the City Council asked them to do, the question of
service delivery to and how you pay for that, and annexation
of property on the city's perimeter that is generally
undeveloped, that is being looked at, and we've asked the
Plan Update Committee to help us through this, big policy
questions about all that.
And -- but no, there is no plan to annex developed
areas that are currently being served by the -- by the
County. And, again, I've never been asked to evaluate that.
I am happy to evaluate that. That -- what that essentially
comes down to is an analysis of the shifting of burden, a
burden from one spot to another, and an analysis of the --
the potential for extending city services, municipal services
to an area that doesn't get it now, and there's going --
quite obviously, there's going to be a cost associated with
that. Now, people ask me all the time, "Well, how come the
city of Kerrville doesn't annex part of Kerrville South or
all of Kerrville South?" Well, it's a real simple answer,
and it has to do with cost associated with it. Now, I will
2-15-08 jwk
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
say, since there's a discussion about how the County and the
City relates to all this, just to make sure this is on the
table, I've been part of discussions before -- not here, City
help pay for it. Because what that is about is shifting a --
what is currently a county burden to a city burden. And it
might -- if we're going to appoint a committee of
representatives from both bodies to look at that, it might be
to be shared into the future. Just -- just a thought.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I agree; I believe I said
Kerrville South, because the County is in the process of
spending, through grants, about $1.5 million. Most of that
has been spent now in Kerrville South, providing --
MR. HOFMANN: Right.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- wastewater, as the City's
fully aware. And that's part of that -- in my mind, part of
that bringing it up to a point when it makes it a lot more
palatable for the City to take over those services.
MR. COLEMAN: Now, another consideration with
2-15-08 jwk
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
Paul, as a Councilman, to answer your first question, I
personally support us looking at it on a tiered basis, maybe.
And it's almost like a big ball of string; you start pulling
it, it's a big -- it's a big thing, because of Kerrville
South. If we could look at the ones that are more contained
within the body of the city, and just anomalies, that makes a
lot of sense. And then next year, maybe look at Kerrville
South.
MR. HOFMANN: And not just U.G.R.A. As people in
the room are aware, there are other service providers out
there on the -- on the edge of the city. In fact, there are
places inside the city that have utility services provided by
other service providers, all of which tend to complicate the
question. But, you know, it's something we ought to look at.
MR. BOCK: To resolve it immediately is to have the
County create a list of these areas, such as the Roy Street,
and -- and compile them, and provide them to the City, and
we'll definitely -- definitely take a look at it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm.
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. So now -- now we're turning
this discussion into something fruitful, gentlemen. Now
we're getting -- okay, here's an action item. Why don't we
continue in that vein?
JUDGE TINLEY: With what the Mayor said, we've got
these staff people available to do these various functions,
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
34
consultants. The -- of course, the road repair and
rehabilitation would be your Director of Public Works and our
Road and Bridge Administrator. And emergency services
dispatch, that, of course, will be the fire and EMS, and --
and the law enforcement people that are involved in utilizing
those functions, and know best how they operate and need to
operate. Broadband, of course, the I.T. Managers in each of
the entities. The -- in looking at the -- the W.A.R.N.
system, we had a presentation on that recently. I'm not sure
how well it was received, but that appears to be something
also that's fire and EMS and law enforcement also. That --
but those are the folks that I see that -- on a go-forward
basis, that would have to take a look at these things. And
staff will brainstorm and then come up with a report to both
of the entities, and see where we go. And then how they fit
in these numbers, that's, of course, another issue. But
as -- as Councilman Hamilton said, now we're getting
somewhere. Now we're getting it.
MR. COLEMAN: Judge, I agree with you 100 percent.
2-15-08 jwk
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
I would also add -- and I may be redundant; you may have
covered it -- that we do the same thing with the ETJ
development problem, and try to assign a group to work that
out before we -- try to modify the existing agreement, if
it's salvageable, than to start totally fresh.
MR. BOCK: That goes back to a concern I have. Was
that state law driven? If we cancel -- if we cancel an
agreement, does that put us in any sort of --
MR. HAYES: We're required under state law to have
that agreement.
MAYOR SMITH: By agreement, we have to have the
agreement, as I understand it.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: But if you can't have an
agreement, it goes to arbitration, and then we'll be given an
agreement. So -- so, I mean, yeah, it has -- we have to do
something. We can't just walk away from it. It's not cancel
and walk away. It's, "Hey, we have a real problem here, and
we need to relook at it." Either way is fine with me. I
mean, it's the same thing. It's either -- to me, it's a --
you know, this is going to be canceled if we don't solve a
new way to do it, but either way, as long as it's -- we're
talking about it. But to go back to -- I hate to agree with
Councilman Hamilton too often here, but I -- (Laughter.)
MAYOR SMITH: Not your reputation, that's for sure.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- you know, I really would
2-15-08 jwk
36
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
like to see us come out with the specific people that are
accountable to these -- as the Judge said, yes, we need these
staff people, but unless the staff is told by the policy
makers that, "You need to do this," I'm not sure we're going
to really be moving too far. And, you know, it's like the
annexation; I wrote down here, yeah, okay, I'll get with our
Road and Bridge Department; we'll come up with a list from my
precinct of things that we think need to be annexed by the
City. You know, that's something that can be done. The ETJ
Road and Bridge Department -- or subdivision administrator,
Len Odom, and I've kind of taken the point on that, working
with that. But other people, like Rex and Mike Hayes,
clearly Paul or -- or someone, you know, on his direction
needs to be involved with that too. So, I think we need to
focus on reducing to paper who's going to be responsible for
each of these items. Otherwise, we'll come back next year
and be in about the same place we are right now.
JUDGE TINLEY: Jon, I think my reason for
mentioning these various offices in our respective entities
was to throw that out there, and looking for a consensus from
both the Court and the Council that, yeah, those folks as
designated need to -- need to perform their function in that
area. That was my purpose in naming that, so that we might
2-15-08 jwk
37
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the action would be -- is
really for the two bodies to come back with and agree with a
formal list of, okay, these people are charged with looking
at this and coming back with a report in both city and
county.
MR. HAMILTON: Building on what Jonathan's saying,
and I'm agreeing with him, is that the next meeting is going
to be structured with -- I'll take this in order. First, the
two H.R. people are going to give us a presentation. Next,
the two streets and roads people are going to give us a
presentation. Next -- and right down the line like that.
Because I -- I think without -- so that they feel somewhat
responsible. I mean, you'll notice that this time, what
happened from last time, good old Scott Gross, who didn't
have the courage to show up today, volunteered me, and
Jonathan stupidly raised his hand, which he got a report,
right? Something happened. So, building on that, if we'll
do the same thing next time, we'll have people standing up
and saying, "We've talked, and we've agreed we can't work
together." Or, "We've talked, and here's what we see as the
right thing to do." We'll have some meaningful dialogue.
Does that make sense to everybody?
JUDGE TINLEY: Perfectly.
MAYOR SMITH: At least you can agree to disagree on
certain matters.
2-15-OS jwk
38
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Sure.
MR. HAMILTON: I said that could be the case. Just
say, "We can't work together."
MAYOR SMITH: Agree to disagree.
MR. HAMILTON: That's not desirable, but it may
happen. It's not to be encouraged.
JUDGE TINLEY: But if it's not staffed, you won't
know.
MR. HAMILTON: Well, that's right. So -- so we've
~~' now got the agenda for next time outlined.
JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm.
MR. HAMILTON: It sounds to me like. I'm not --
MAYOR SMITH: See, I have to mention one little
area. You have Roy Street. My little problem is -- is that
at the end of where Veterans Highway hits 173, there's a
little section of land in there that's in the county. The
people on Earl Hollimon (sic) call me all the time and say,
"Somebody shot a deer 10 feet beyond my fence, and my kids
were out there, and he's -- he's shooting -- firing a rifle
at deer right there." And somebody said, "Well, you know, we
can't sleep at night because they sell firecrackers there.
Why don't you tell them to get out of there?" Well, I say,
"Call Bill."
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they do. (Laughter.)
MAYOR SMITH: I probably get more complaints about
2-15-08 jwk
39
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
', that little section of land than anywhere else, but it wasn't
inside the city until they took over the -- the park. Now
it's wholly inside the city. It's a little island in there
that somebody needs to -- to administer and, you know, to
say, "You can't hunt on county property." You can't do that
because, you know, it's under the -- under the hunting laws
of the county. So, it's something that has to -- I think it
needs to be part of the city. Well, it's going to be an
uneconomical thing for the City to take over that property.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'll give you the fireworks
concession, Mayor.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay. Okay. Well, that's an
illustration of something that needs to be worked out, as to
what -- but if it -- it will -- with the services the City is
obligated to provide some of these areas will be an economic
hardship to the City, but that's what the City is supposed to
do.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think there's another
illustration. Going back to what you said, Councilman, with
respect to "agree to disagree," or perhaps having a
subcommittee work on something, and then the two governing
bodies never really knowing what the info was and what the
consensus of agreement or disagreement was, and that has to
do with emergency services dispatch. That's been talked
about. Sheriff's talked about it. I believe the Chief of
2-15-08 jwk
40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Police has talked about it. I couldn't tell you what their
findings were. I don't know what their findings were,
whether they were good, bad, or indifferent. All I know is
that they hit a wall, and that was the end of it. So, I
think your point's valid, and if it does hit a wall, at least
we ought to know what the reasons were.
MR. HAMILTON: Sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As to whether they make
sense or don't make sense.
MR. HAMILTON: Maybe we can adjust the wall.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Could be, or tear it down.
MR. HAMILTON: Yeah, that's what's I'm implying,
sure.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, I just want to pass
out something. I don't mean to jump here, but we had one
other area on there. I don't want to get into any major
discussion about it unless you and the Mayor want to, but
this has to do with the Wide Area Rapid -- Rapid Notification
system, and it's just a handout. And if there's any -- maybe
just a cursory explanation, I'd ask Mr. Amerine to do that.
So, I put this on the agenda; unbeknownst to me, within hours
or a day or so, we had a whole rash of brush fires all over
the county. It just kind of emphasizes the need for us to at
least know more about Wide Area Rapid Notification system and
what's it's all about and what the costs are, what the
2-15-08 jwk
41
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
benefits are and so forth. So, that's kind of the basis of
this. This is -- for the those who don't know what it's all
about, it is the updated version of what used to be called
Reverse 911, where you can, you know, identify an area that
has a problem, whether it's fire or whether it's flood or any
other kind of catastrophe, and through the use of the
Internet and the trunk service -- trunk services of the local
telephone company, you can notify all of the residents within
a particular given area that you've identified of the danger
that they face and send out some kind of message. With your
permission, Judge, I'd like Mr. Amerine just to say a word or
two about it, and further -- further in terms of what this is
all about before we pass on. It, too, needs to be studied in
terms of what the cost and what the benefits are.
JUDGE TINLEY: Bill, did you know you were going to
get pulled into this?
MR. AMERINE: I did.
JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Well, that's good.
MR. AMERINE: I'll give a -- do I need to stand?
JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, it'd probably be helpful, if
you wouldn't mind.
MR. AMERINE: At the request of Commissioner
Williams and a rather pesty -- pesky little vendor who kept
calling me every week to try to get on the agenda to have
City and County officials review their product -- and this
2-15-08 jwk
42
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
a year, we finally were able to get some representatives from
the City and the County together to review this product.
And, like I said, it's one of many. Essentially, what it is,
is it's an Internet-based service that allows jurisdictions,
whether it be City, County Health, City Health, whatever, to
notify a select group of citizens about an impending issue,
whether it be public health issue, public safety issue.
I think the wildfire last week is a good example of
that. I got a call from Pat Tinley, Jr., who was assisting
to help -- trying to get some assistance to help notify
certain citizens that the fire was headed their way. And
right now, neither the County nor the City have any efficient
way of identifying who those citizens are and quickly
notifying them, other than going out there with a bullhorn
and saying, "Pack your bags, get the heck out." These
systems are not cheap. The one that we looked at with
Commissioner Williams and County and City representatives has
a license fee in the first year of about $30,000. It goes
down to half that the second year, and there's a per-call
cost. All of the provisioning of the services is done
somewhere else. The only limiting factor is how many access
2-15-08 jwk
43
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
lines we have in our local telephone companies. One of the
concerns that's always raised with one of these systems is,
the fire departments and response agencies. Well, these
systems, by law, only can capture, if you will, about 60
percent of the available access lines, so that they can't
completely strangle the public telephone network.
I think -- and, you know, I'm really here as a
technical expert, I guess, on this. I think this is
something that the City and the County should seriously look
at. This is one of those things you don't think about
needing until you need it, and then it's too late. It's a
simple thing to do. We'd be involved at 911 by providing the
geographic information layer, if you will, that provides
physical addresses. The vendor would then take information
from the individual phone companies and create a visual layer
that allows the user of this tool to select a polygon, a
circle, an area to prerecord a message to go out to citizens,
and then hit an enter key on their -- any Internet access
computer, laptop, anything, and it would automatically start
sending out those messages and get those people notified.
All these systems are essentially the same, whether it be
W.A.R.N. or Reverse 911, Code Red. They're all essentially
2-15-08 jwk
44
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
the same. Just depending on how you want to approach it,
which one you want to go with. It seems like, to me, rather
than having the City do their own thing and the County do
their own thing, this is something that should be jointly
looked at and jointly licensed. It's much more efficient, a
lot more cost-effective to do it that way. I'll answer any
questions you have about it.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Bill.
Appreciate it.
MR. AMERINE: You bet.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sounds like a good job for
you to proceed and review, and come with a recommendation to
both entities.
MR. AMERINE: I can do that.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Actually, if I may on that,
myself, my chief, one of the representatives from the City --
I believe it was Captain Wendling -- went to the presentation
that was done with Mr. Amerine. We all came away from there
that it needed to be done. It's something that I know the
County's needed for years, not just because of fires. You
know, they are one reason, but it does kind of give
notification -- now, fast as those fires were moving, it may
or may not have given us a lot of help, but floods are a
major part where you can warn people. You can't, you know,
do it with loudspeakers, even though that's exactly what we
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
45
large area, it will give reason to notify. The presentation
they gave gives a certain dollar amount for the license fee
itself. That goes down each year, and then the calls are a
very small part of that.
And even in that presentation and discussion, that
with what they need in the city. When they need to notify a
certain group, they pay for the individual call cost of it,
which is very nominal. You think it would get to be
expensive, but it's really not. For that notification, if we
need to get the County to notify a whole area on a river or
whatever, the County pays for that. I walked away from that
meeting in hopes that they would give the presentation to the
!i Commissioners Court and City, and I wasn't able to be there
when it was done. Commissioner Williams was at our first
one. And the position I'm at right now, for being over the
W.A.R.N. part of the emergency management annex, is it's now
a budget item, and it's an item that -- that we can put into
our budgets. It is a dollar figure in there that we can use
to put into each of our budgets respectively, and even
including Ingram, for the next year's budget rounds, which
we'll start preparing in the next couple of months. And, to
me, that's where we're at. It's something that has to be
done.
2-15-08 jwk
46
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just something I want to add.
I mean, this goes to -- it's one of those things that doesn't
make that much difference if we spend $30,000 a year --
$30,000's a lot of money, but in our budget, that's a pretty
small-ticket item, and whether it's done 100 percent by the
County or jointly doesn't make that much difference to me.
But it's critical that there's one system that -- and the
best system available currently is the one that's chosen.
And it -- you know, there -- you know, the dollars are not
that big on this one, so it should be pretty much of a
no-brainer. So, we can start proceeding on this. I think
Commissioner Oehler's statement is correct, that Bill Amerine
needs to, you know, get with Rusty and the Police Chief or
whoever their designees are, and probably someone from
Ingram, and come up, look at what's out there, recommend what
they think is the best program. Just get it in the budget.
CHIEF YOUNG: My representatives came back very
impressed with the process. My only concern is that we need
to look globally; we don't need to look at just one. Right
now we're discussing one vendor, and I think we need to look
at multiple vendors to compare what they have to offer and
what their cost effectiveness is. Like Bill said, there's
several systems out there. Each of them have their own
nuances, but I think we need to -- if we're going to do this,
we do it jointly, split our cost. And since it falls within
2-15-08 jwk
47
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
our emergency management issue, I don't know if there's
grants out there available for that kind of stuff or not, but
it's just something we might want to look at with AACOG or
somebody else also.
MR. AMERINE: Grant money has been used in the past
by other counties and cities.
CHIEF YOUNG: So we may look at that. We're coming
up on -- you know, with AACOG and some of the CJAC grants,
that we may be able to do that. So --
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I think this issue, as far as
what's on this agenda, is -- in my opinion, I think the Chief
would agree with me, this is an issue no -- none of us have a
difference of opinion on whether we need it or not. I think
every one of us agree we have to have it, and we need it.
Every one of us agree, you know, it's at the point of picking
the correct vendor that we decide on and then presenting the
budget to the City Council and the County Commissioners, and
let's just basically make this thing happen, period.
MAYOR SMITH: And $30,000 is peanuts compared to
the safety issue here.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct.
CHIEF YOUNG: And the fact that we have a small
university here, and what happened at N.I.U. yesterday --
they have their own system, but, you know, it would improve
our position if we ever had something that was close to the
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I5
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
48
area owes a thanks to the volunteer fire department -- the
county volunteer fire departments for -- for preventing these
fires from getting completely out of control. So, I don't
know who pulls the volunteer fire departments together, but
they cooperated very well. I think there was, oh, maybe 15
or more fire departments that worked together to do this, and
it could have easily -- the one going along I-10 could have
very easily blown into the city. So, as Mayor of the City of
Kerrville, I wish to express our thanks to the vol -- the
Kerr County volunteer fire departments.
JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, Mayor. Of course, there
were other departments that came in as mutual aid agreements,
and there may have been some that didn't have specific mutual
aid agreements, but they show up to help each other out.
It's a -- it's a tremendous fraternity those folks have, and
when the bell rings, they show up and they get the job done.
And we've got some extraordinarily good fire protection at a
pretty doggone nominal cost, and we're proud of it.
MR. BEAVERS: There was actually 22 departments
2-15-08 jwk
49
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
that assisted in that Midway fire, and generally, as the
Judge mentioned, it's mutual aid agreements that the
departments have among themselves. Of course, the Forest
Service was also involved, and they stated -- requested some
assistance for air drops, and --
MAYOR SMITH: The City was obligated to the County
for one brush truck, but we opened our emergency office at
the police station, and we were ready and -- to send out
additional fire trucks if needed. So, we -- we were
prepared, and I think that's pretty important, the emergency
procedures that are available in Kerrville and Kerr County.
And I think we -- the manual's about that thick, and every
person is assigned, and we do -- we just don't put a book on
the shelf. It's practiced on occasions during the year.
SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: There's one other issue I'd
like to mention, in that for fire, there's a few other people
that really need some very strong acknowledgment. Number one
was the Salvation Army showed up out at the -- out at the
Goat Creek fire, one of the first big ones, and they handed
out water, food, everything that any fireman or anybody else
could need. Didn't cost anything. The Red Cross, we
dispatched them to Midway fire. They did the same thing
there. We had a number of contractors here, and it's not
cheap to load up bulldozers on 18-wheelers and just offer
them anywhere, and before the end of the day, we had over 10
2-15-08 jwk
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
different bulldozers that were offered at different locations
to help us, just by some of our contractors offering. Not a
phone call made requesting, nothing; they just offered it.
H.E.B. -- we drove over there, because at first we
didn't have water. H.E.B. threw about -- between 75 and 100
cases of water in the back of one of our department's trucks
to haul out there, and hauled it out to the volunteer
firemen. People donated 500, 600 sandwiches for them. You
know, this community is unbelievable when this happens,
because you don't have to make too many phone calls, and word
gets out, people show up, and it's more, "Okay, now let's get
it directed and put out." But the whole community,
especially those contractors and our local businesses, were
fabulous. And the volunteer firemen, no doubt -- you know, I
was driving down the interstate; you couldn't see the hood of
my car. Because we had a truck that was trapped on the
interstate, and all you could see is flames on both sides of
the car. And I'm putting it in reverse, getting out of
there, and some volunteer firemen were going into it, putting
out the fire. Those people are unbelievable in the county.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, I didn't know about all these
details, but I -- I second your motion that they deserve a
great deal of thanks.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other area on fire, and --
the change that was made, I think probably everyone ought to
2-15-08 jwk
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
know, 'cause we're working together and trying to improve
so we have a system that it's on again, off again, depending
on rains in different parts of the county, and through our --
Jody, our court administrator, we've really changed that
notification process. Also, John Trolinger helped a lot on
who gets notified. And in that, I want to thank -- Mark
Beavers has, you know, kind of also gotten much more involved
in that, and he sends the County information on fire watches,
red flag warnings, things like that. We get e-mails about
that, which is to make sure we're aware what's coming
weather-wise so we can adjust accordingly, and I think
there's been a lot more communication. We usually just
notify directly, oh, two or three people by phone when we
change the burn ban. Now, other -- by e-mail, you know, that
list has gotten much longer, including Forest Service, NRCS.
City dispatch now is much more involved in that notification
process; they get called. Of course, Rusty's office is very
much involved with that. All the volunteer fire departments
are notified right away. So, we've really used technology to
improve that and try to keep the public and people that need
to know what the burn ban -- what we're doing, more informed.
If we can just get the Legislature to make the penalties a
little stiffer for people that violate it, maybe we can break
2-15-08 jwk
52
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Mayor, let me see if I sense
where we are.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
JUDGE TINLEY: These various functions, we will
need to prepare a -- a roster, as it were, of -- ask each one
of these functions and who the responsible parties are out of
both organizations to evaluate and study and staff those
issues, and to come back with a report and recommendations at
our next meeting, and then we'll proceed to take it from
there, as it were.
!, MAYOR SMITH: That's fine, but I don't think we
need to stop at the items that are on the list. If some
staff person thinks that there's some other areas of
cooperation, I think it should automatically be added.
JUDGE TINLEY: I've got no problem with that.
Seems reasonable to me.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe we've got some
things to talk about that we have kind of skipped over here,
and I think that what we really need to focus on, as well as
other issues that we need to cooperate on jointly, we need to
figure out how to solve the problems within those areas where
we have had the biggest discussions and the biggest amount of
controversy, and I believe those two areas are the library
and the -- probably EMS, and maybe fire. And so if we can
2-15-08 jwk
53
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
come to some kind of an agreement of who does what, maybe if
we could each take one or the other, or take two and somebody
take one, so we don't have these arguments every year about
how much funding is required to do these functions. It seems
like there's been an argument about the library for the last
-- however many years, probably at least 10 or 12, 15 maybe.
And it seems to me that we need to target those areas where
we have the most controversy so we can get a plan, solve it,
and move on. It is -- it is ridiculous to argue about these
things every year.
And right now, we're still -- having settled one of
them, I'm going to go ahead and bring it up, because that's
part of reason we're here, I think, and that is the library
and the excess funds that were left over out of last year's
budget. Which Commissioners Court has requested to be
reimbursed for that, but in all fairness, we also have the
same thing with the Animal Control. Kerr County does the
Animal Control, and it's basically the same way we do the
library, and so it's only fair in my mind that -- that if
there's an excess of funds that were left over and unexpended
from a previous budget, they should be credited or refunded,
and so it works the same way in Animal Control. We do all of
that. The City pays us -- last year was 60/40; this year's
budget is 50/50. And so it was pointed out to me, and I
totally agree, that we need to credit or pay back the excess
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
54
funds that were left over from that budget. It -- in my
mind, it's not fair that -- that we take funds from one
entity to another and do not credit those or pay back. It's
all the same taxpayers, but you have city taxpayers and you
have county taxpayers that pay for different services.
MAYOR SMITH: I want to address the library. There
was an agreement years ago, and it was an action taken by the
Commissioners Court to take the excess funds and credit it to
the next year. That was done in an action by the
Commissioners Court, and there's a gentleman in this room
that will verify it if you don't agree with it. But it went
on for years and years, people on the Commissioners Court
fussing about not refunding the money. "Where did the
$44,000 go?" Well, it's by action of the Court that it was
credited to the next year. And you went on at the little guy
from the -- that owned a motel out there somewhere -- I can't
think of his name --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Has that been done this year?
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, you've done it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, has it been done in this
'07-'08 budget?
MAYOR SMITH: There was no recommendation from the
City to -- to credit it. And there's a little complication.
Y'all didn't pay your 50 percent of it, so there's a little
-- it's not that easy as it -- when it was 50/50 to make it.
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
55
But --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's --
MAYOR SMITH: -- if y'all want the money refunded,
and we can agree what your share of the money is, I'm sure
that the City Manager will refund your money, if you -- if
you care to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what we'd like.
MAYOR SMITH: Y'all did not pay 50/50, so it's not
as feasible --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: In '06-'07, we didn't pay
50/50 of what was requested to be funded?
MAYOR SMITH: No, I'm pretty sure that -- the
information I've seen, it wasn't 50/50.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's not the information I
have. This is -- I mean, this is another one of the
dealings, as an example of which --
MAYOR SMITH: You made the request, and we're
working on -- the City Manager's working on replying to that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that.
MAYOR SMITH: We kept going over and over, and you
were one of the guilty persons, wanting to know what happened
to it. And I wish y'all would shut up on what happened years
ago.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm talking about right now.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. Well, it's being worked on.
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
56
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Mr. Mayor, I'm not being
disrespectful to you; I am stating a fact. And I am not
doing anything outside what was rightfully to be done in
'06-'07. I could care less what happened before that.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that money was not
credited to Kerr County in '07-'08. We are already four
months into it. It has not been done. The money went from
that budget, which -- of which we paid the money, into your
general fund October 30 -- October lst, --
MAYOR SMITH: Well --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- '07.
MAYOR SMITH: Historically, it was credited the
previous year.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't care what historical
is; we're talking about today.
MAYOR SMITH: All of a sudden, this year you want
to set up a different procedure. It is -- it hasn't been
calculated right now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Well, let's get it
calculated, get it straight.
MAYOR SMITH: When do you think you'll have a reply
to this?
MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Mayor, I'll reply in any way the
City Council would like for me to reply. Commissioner Oehler
2-15-08 jwk
57
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
is right; the County Commissioners -- and the Council knows
with him some thoughts and a calculation that we prepared. I
did share that with the City Council. And, if I may, I think
the first question here, before you get into doing math, is
-- and this is ultimately a question for the elected
officials in the room, and specifically the City Council.
Now, the County Commissioners have spoken. They think they
are owed a refund.
So, the first question in my opinion is, is there
-- should there have been an expectation, based upon the
agreement we put together in developing that fiscal '07
budget, that if the library function doesn't spend 100
percent of its budget, then there ought to be a refund? Now,
if you'd like, I can talk about that for a bit. I'll say in
brief that in my opinion, no, there's no -- that was never
discussed. That's not part of the agreement, and I'm not
even sure I follow the logic that there's an expectation that
the library has to spend 100 percent of its budget, or if it
doesn't, there's a refund. But if I'm in the minority on
that, and it doesn't matter -- if the City Council's of the
2-15-08 jwk
58
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The fact is, there is no 50 percent contribution.
newspaper. mere is no 5u percent conzrir~uLlcn ivr ~~~e 1d51,
couple of years now. Every July, Judge Tinley gets a letter
from me that makes suggestions as we go through the budget
process of what the City/County contribution should be on
these joint functions. And for the last several years now,
we've used a formula for determining that library
contribution that nets out non-tax-related revenues and nets
out capital outlay and capital expenses at the library. So,
right there, you're not talking about 50 percent. And the
share we ask the County to participate in does not include
any enhancements that we might be looking for in our budget
that next fiscal year; for example, salary increases. We
base that contribution on how we define a base budget.
This year's contribution -- I'm sorry, last year's
contribution came out to be $443,000. And Commissioner
Oehler's correct, that's what we requested, and that is what
the County paid for. What I shared with Commissioner Oehler
and I shared with the City Council is a formula that, if we
agree a refund is due, and if we agree that 50 percent of net
2-15-08 jwk
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
actual expenses is how that ought to be calculated, then we
did that math, and, okay, a refund of about $6,000 would be
appropriate. And if it's the City Council's direction to me
to prepare that refund, I'll do it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's all fine and
good, but, you know, a deal's a deal. And when you're asked
to -- when you're requested to fund the operational costs of
the library at basically a 50/50 split, and the County paid
based on that amount of money, paid 12 months of that amount
of money to total out to that amount, and that money was not
expended, how is it not to be credited or refunded? You
don't change the rules and all of a sudden decide you want to
put administrative fees, you want to put other costs into it.
That was not requested in the beginning.
MR. HOFMANN: No, I --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you want to do that, do it
up front. Don't try to do it after the fact.
MR. HOFMANN: And I'm just going to suggest that we
left --
MR. HAMILTON: Well, to definitely be clear, they
are coming this year, Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it's a wonderful --
maybe we can just separate them.
MR. HAMILTON: You can be sure.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What I would prefer to do is
2-15-08 jwk
60
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
controversy, I promise.
MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Mayor, if I might suggest -- and
I do not mean to belabor this discussion, and I'll do
whatever I am asked to do, but I do feel a bit of an
obligation here to make sure we are staying on a factual
plane. I don't know how we could have been more clear when
change the rules as we go. As far as I can tell, this is how
it's been approached generally for about 40 years. There was
one discussion about a refund during that period, but I'll
suggest if what we're -- if what we're looking for here is an
approach that details those actual expenses against budgeted
expenses and tries to reconcile through the course of the
next fiscal year, then you're adding a complexity level that
I just want you to think about. And I don't think, at the
very premise, it is correct to say that the thinking ever was
that that 50 percent contribution -- that that contribution
equated to some obligation on the City's part for how much
money was spent. I think you can argue that there was some
service delivery expectation, but the fact that there were
vacancy savings in the library budget, and that that equates
2-15-08 jwk
61
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to a -- a conclusion that there ought to be a refund, then
that's the change in the rules, not the other way around.
But I'm happy to live with it if that's the direction.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: On the contrary there, I
part that if the entire budget was not expended, for whatever
reason, staffing not being hired or whatever reasons there
may have been, there was never any understanding on our part
that any unexpended funds would revert back to the City's
general fund. That was never our understanding.
MR. HOFMANN: Well, that's just a simple function
of how that budget works.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right, a simple
function of the money going into to City's general fund.
MR. HOFMANN: I apologize for that; that's how that
works.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It will be made right any way
you slice it or turn it, or whatever you want to do with it.
You can't alibi your way out of that fact, in my mind.
MR. COLEMAN: Let me interject my perspective real
quick. Bruce, I see what you're saying, I truly do. From
one perspective, all we'd have to do is jack up the budget
and -- and realize savings that you guys never realize, and I
can understand that being a problem. However, this is just
like a whole lot of our -- our shared services; this thing
2-15-08 jwk
62
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
has gotten complicated. I think the first -- because the
agreement's changed over the last two or three years relative
to the entire agreement, and I think the cost-sharing. I
think the first thing we've got to do -- I hate to do this,
but I think the first thing we've got to do maybe is have
Mike and Rex look at the agreements and see what the
agreements actually say. Then -- we need to come through
that first and know what -- what legally is required, and
then I think, once we've determined that -- and some of this
issue may become a moot point. We may say, "Well, yeah, we
need to refund this," or may not. We may say that, "Well,
no, guys, that's the way it was, and it is a budget
function." But, personally, I think that -- I think, I
really do, that we shouldn't realize -- if we had a situation
where we had salaries that weren't used during the year, I
don't think we ought to realize singly the savings on that.
It ought to be -- it ought to be a shared basis.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree with everything you're
saying, except I don't really want Mike and Rex getting
towards that kind of confrontation as to a policy decision.
MR. COLEMAN: Not confrontation, but consultation
to help us.
MR. HOFMANN: I can just tell you, the agreement
doesn't speak to it. I can save you some time there.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I --
2-15-08 jwk
63
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But there is precedent for
it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Real simple. It's what we do
with Animal Control.
MR. HOFMANN: We can go back and look at 40 years
worth of precedents. But, okay, if the City Council would
like for me to do that, we can do it.
MR. COLEMAN: Mine is one opinion of five.
MR. BOCK: Well, when we take that excess funds,
and excess funds run into our general fund, is that credited
toward the beginning balance in the library operations the
next year?
MR. HOFMANN: No, it is unappropriated balance in
the general fund, is what it is.
MR. COLEMAN: If it goes forward --
MR. BOCK: No, but it doesn't go back directly the
next year for the function of the library?
MR. HOFMANN: It is subject to whatever the City
Council decides to do with it when you appropriate.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I rest my case.
MR. HOFMANN: Well --
MR. COLEMAN: That doesn't seem fair. If it is
applied to the library going forward, you're right, that's
not an issue.
MR. BOCK: Right. Then I would -- I would agree
2-15-08 jwk
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
64
with that point. If we're going to apply those unexpended
funds back to a beginning balance of the library which is
used the following year is one thing, but to take that money,
and if we're putting it into our general fund for whatever
use we determine to use for that money, I can see then, as
the County does, then --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's the same thing with
Animal Control. If we were going to intend to do that, we're
doing the same thing. That is, we're taking money that was
unexpended --
MR. HAMILTON: There is a difference on Animal
I Control.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Whatever we decide --
MR. HAMILTON: You're asking the City, on Animal
Control, to pay twice for it. Let us get our facts correct,
Commissioner.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: City people live in the city
by choice. It was voted on to be turned into a corporate
city years ago, knowing that services were required.
MR. HAMILTON: And the City is paying its full
share directly in as -- as county tax rate, Commissioner, as
you well know.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, it's been that way.
MR. HAMILTON: As you well know, the City is paying
its full share and its county tax rate --
2-15-08 jwk
65
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir.
MR. HAMILTON: -- for this service.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So is every other city in the
state of Texas. You're not special.
MR. HAMILTON: I only care about this city and this
county.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's the way the
world's set up in Texas. And we're fully willing to work
with you to do joint things to enhance both entities, but I
don't know how you would separate a tax -- you know, how you
would -- how we would go up on our taxes and exempt the city
residents from having those taxes.
MR. HAMILTON: The city residents pay the county
taxes right now.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure do.
MR. HAMILTON: Thank you.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They always will. Every city
in the state's going to pay that from now on. It's not going
to change in Kerrville.
MR. HAMILTON: So you think the City should pay the
tax twice?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They do, because that's the
way its set up. We didn't do it. Constitution did it.
MR. HAMILTON: No, that is incorrect.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They did it for the county.
2-15-08 jwk
66
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
The county -- every city in the county is part of the county,
and they are subject to county taxes.
MR. HAMILTON: That's correct. Trying to pass the
cross back to the city again is not state law.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What is it?
MR. COLEMAN: Back to the library issue, how do we
solve that to go forward, Paul? I mean, have you gone
through your analysis? You just need to sit down with Bruce?
Or the appropriate --
MR. HOFMANN: If it is our intent to get to a point
at the end of the fiscal '07 budget that we -- the City and
the County share 50 percent of the net expenses, backing out
non-tax revenue and backing out city expenses for capital
outlay, then by that math, which I have shared with the City
Council, we need to write the County a check for about
$6,000. And if it's Council's consensus that I do that,
we'll do that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's based on your
calculations.
MR. HOFMANN: That's based on --
MR. COLEMAN: You haven't had a chance to walk
Bruce through that?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have been through it. We
do not agree.
MR. COLEMAN: You disagree?
2-15-08 jwk
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
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We do not agree.
MR. HOFMANN: Then what I would -- and,
', Mr. Coleman, I'm truly not trying to create an argument here.
What I would respectfully request is a -- a suggestion. I
think what we came up with is more than fair, and if that's
not adequate, then I would just request a proper approach
that --
MR. COLEMAN: Bruce, will you come back with a --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Sure.
MR. COLEMAN: -- with a scenario that you support
that we can all look at?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be glad to.
MAYOR SMITH: But you agree with the $6,000 that's
been calculated by the City?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I do not agree with the
$6, 000.
MAYOR SMITH: So, you need -- we can't take any
action on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, I'm just bringing it up.
I want --
MAYOR SMITH: We have a quorum here. I was
prepared to make a motion that we -- we solve the problem.
I'm not going to argue over $6,000.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, if it was just $6,000,
I wouldn't be arguing over it, probably, either. It wouldn't
2-15-08 jwk
68
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
be a big enough issue. But I think the issue's somewhere in
the neighborhood of -- the County's portion we contest is
$23,000.
MAYOR SMITH: $23,000?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And it's not based on --
because we're doing operational costs only. We don't own the
building. We don't maintain the building. We only share
cost -- share operational costs.
MAYOR SMITH: Have you made your calculations to
the City Manager?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have not.
MAYOR SMITH: You need to do that.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If that was what was
calculated that was left over by the City from last budget
year, it was 46,000.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, we can't resolve it until the
-- the County and the City agree on what the number is.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that.
MAYOR SMITH: As far as I'm concerned, you can have
your dadgum money.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Thank you. We'd like to.
MAYOR SMITH: I wish that you would also pay --
there were some years that you didn't come up with your
50 percent, that we got charity to --
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, there were years --
2-15-08 jwk
69
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
MAYOR SMITH: Anyway, y'all have an obligation.
You have an obligation to come out with some problem, and it
will be placed on our agenda to approve it if you can agree
with it. If it's never agreed, then we can't take any action
on it.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand the process,
MAYOR SMITH: Thank you. I appreciate it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bruce, did you have any more
issues?
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's all I have, Buster.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: All right.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get after it.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anything else from the
Commissioners Court?
COMMISSIONER LETZ: I just think we need to go back
where we started and look at some of the issues, and it will
resolve that -- this issue and other issues if we just look
at how we move forward.
MR. COLEMAN: Well, from the global perspective,
based on these analyses, I think that's going to fix all
these individual issues, just as you said.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We'll get those behind us,
and I'm more than willing for us to separate some things and
do them on our own. The City has a totally --
2-15-08 jwk
70
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
MR. COLEMAN: Or do more together.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Or do more together. I mean,
it'll be together; it will just be doing things independently
of one another, so we don't have to argue about, well,
they're giving a 7 percent raise over here, and we can only
afford 3 and a half. And we -- we have these health care
benefits and they have these over year here. Let us take
care of each -- of individual things with our own staff so we
don't have those kinds of arguments.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Bill, anything else?
MAYOR SMITH: For the record, since you mentioned
7 percent, our City employees got 3.3 percent, I believe.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was just using it as an
~ example.
MAYOR SMITH: Okay.
COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I was not trying to put a
specific number. I was using it as an example.
MR. HOFMANN: On the average. And, again, we -- we
did not ask the County to participate in any of the cost of
these salary increases.
MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, okay.
COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Any of the cost of what?
MR. HOFMANN: Any of the cost of any of the salary
increases.
25 ~ COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anything from the County
2-15-08 jwk
71
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
staff?
MR. HOFMANN: Anywhere.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Anything from County staff?
MR. HOFMANN: We took the same approach when we
calculated the fire and EMS contribution too.
COMMISSIONER LETZ: Commissioner Baldwin, are you
saying we're done?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm fixing to say that.
MR. COLEMAN: Do you need the hammer?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Hmm?
MR. COLEMAN: Do you need the hammer there?
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I've got one. You
notice the Judge, when the firecrackers were lit, out the
door he went. Typical.
MAYOR SMITH: Well, are we -- are you the --
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I am, and I'm fixing to
adjourn this meeting.
MAYOR SMITH: -- the number two guy? So, the
number one guy is gone, so you're the number one guy.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir.
MAYOR SMITH: And I'm the number one guy on this.
I think we have concluded what was on the agenda. With your
approval, we will stand adjourned.
COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're adjourned.
(Joint City/County workshop adjourned at 9:37 a.m.)
2-15-08 jwk
72
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
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 20th day of February,
2008.
JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk
B Y : __ ; R-_- _ _
Kathy B ik, Deputy County Clerk
Certified Shorthand Reporter
2-15-08 jwk