1 2 3 KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL 4 and 5 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 6 City/County Joint Programs Budget Workshop 7 Tuesday, July 31, 2001 8 12:00 noon 9 City Council Chambers 10 800 Junction Highway 11 Kerrville, Texas 12 13 14 15 P R E S E N T 16 Kerrville City Council: 17 STEPHEN P. FINE, Mayor 18 ANN G. SULLIVAN, Mayor Pro Tem NANCY BANKS, Place 2 19 DAVID WAMPLER, Place 3 TONY ROBERTS, Place 4 20 RON PATTERSON, City Manager DANE L. TUNE, Assistant City Manager 21 22 Kerr County Commissioners Court: 23 FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 24 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 25 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 2 1 I N D E X July 31, 2001 2 PAGE 3 Call to Order 3 4 1. Discussion of Joint Budgeted Items 5 Fire Protection 9 Emergency Management 20 6 EMS 22 First Responder 32 7 216th Judicial District Drug Task Force 35 Airport 43 8 Recycling 63 Library 68 9 Animal Control 75 Tax Collection 78 10 11 2. Discussion of other potential Joint Ventures 12 Municipal Court 79 Garage Services 80 13 Road Support 82 Common Dispatch 83 14 Wastewater Treatment 83 15 Adjourned 86 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Tuesday, July 31, 2001, at 12:00 noon, a joint 2 meeting of the Kerrville City Council and the Kerr County 3 Commissioners Court was held at City Council Chambers, 800 4 Junction Highway, Kerrville, Texas, and the following 5 proceedings were had in open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 MAYOR FINE: No gavel, I have to use 8 knuckles. I'd like to welcome y'all here today. This is a 9 very momentous occasion for the citizens of Kerr County. 10 This is something that probably should happen at least every 11 millennium. 12 (Laughter.) 13 MAYOR FINE: No, actually, it should be 14 happening every -- every year, at least once a year for 15 these two governing bodies to get together like they are 16 today. Not necessarily eating food together, but having a 17 meeting and discussing their joint budgets. I'd like -- 18 well, first of all, we need to call the meeting to order, 19 and so I declare the City meeting officially open. You want 20 to open yours? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: I call to order this regular 22 -- this special meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners 23 Court. And, on behalf of the Court, I want to extend my 24 thanks to you, Mayor, and the City Council, the City staff 25 for organizing this meeting. I agree with you that it's 4 1 something that's long overdue and something that we need to 2 make a regular part of our business practices as we work on 3 behalf of the citizens of Kerr County. Thank you very much. 4 MAYOR FINE: I'd like to go around the room. 5 There's a lot of City staff the Commissioners may not be 6 familiar with; probably not many of them, but there's some 7 County staff that the Council members are maybe not familiar 8 with. So, if we can go around and room and just introduce 9 yourselves. That way we know who we're talking to, also. I 10 don't see many citizens at large; I think everybody's pretty 11 much here because they have to be. Sheila, why don't you go 12 ahead, start first. 13 MS. BRAND: Okay. I'm Sheila Brand. I'm the 14 City Clerk for the City of Kerrville. 15 MS. SOVIL: I'm Thea Sovil, and I'm the Court 16 Coordinator for Commissioners Court. 17 MR. LUCAS: Travis Lucas, Assistant County 18 Attorney, and pretty much advise this crew down here from 19 time to time. 20 MR. MOTLEY: I'm David Motley. I'm the County 21 Attorney. 22 MR. BROOKS: I'm Brian Brooks, Assistant 23 Planning Director for the City. 24 MS. SEKULA: Mary Sekula, Budget and Insurance 25 Coordinator for the City. 5 1 MR. PATTERSON: Ron Patterson, City Manager. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Kyle, you want to -- 3 MR. YOUNG: Kyle Young. I'm the EMS Coordinator 4 for the Kerrville Fire Department. 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: Raymond Holloway, the Fire 6 Chief, City of Kerrville Fire Department. 7 MR. KNIPPEL: I'm Paul Knippel. I'm Public 8 Works Director for the City of Kerrville. 9 MR. ALLEN: Marc Allen. I'm with the Kerr 10 County Animal Control. 11 MR. LAUGHLIN: Kevin Laughlin, City Attorney. 12 MR. MARTINEZ: Antonio Martinez, Library 13 Director. 14 MR. DAVIS: Jeff Davis, Kerrville Daily Times. 15 MS. RECTOR: Paula Rector. I'm the County/ 16 City Tax Assessor/Collector. 17 MS. CAFFALL: Megan Caffall. I'm the 18 Environmental/Aviation Administrator for the City of 19 Kerrville. 20 MS. PRIEST: I'm Ruth Priest, Chairman of the 21 Airport Board. 22 MR. TUNE: I'm Dane Tune, Assistant City Manager. 23 MR. ROBERTS: Tony Roberts, City Council. 24 MS. BANKS; Nancy Banks, City Council. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Bill Williams, 6 1 Commissioner, Precinct 2. 2 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Buster Baldwin, 3 Precinct 1. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Fred Henneke, Kerr County 5 Judge. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jonathan Letz, 7 Commissioner, Precinct 3. 8 MR. WAMPLER: David Wampler, City Council. 9 MS. SULLIVAN: Ann Sullivan, City Council. 10 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Larry Griffin, 11 Precinct 4. 12 MAYOR FINE: Stephen Fine, Mayor. And we all 13 talked one at a time. I was warned if we didn't talk one at 14 a time, she's going to thump us on the head or throw 15 something at us. We're going to go ahead and let Ron take 16 it from here and get into it. Please continue to eat and 17 sit back, relax, and enjoy the show. 18 MR. PATTERSON: First of all, I'd like to add 19 my welcome, and also add my thanks for taking your time to 20 come today and be willing to do this. As the mayor and the 21 Judge have already alluded to, I think it's an exciting time 22 for us. One of the things that the Judge and the mayor and 23 I had an opportunity to meet Friday to talk about this forum 24 and how we would put it together and what format it would 25 work in, and we want it to be as informal as possible. Open 7 1 discussion, as much feedback as possible. And, also -- I 2 mean, if you need additional items, you know, drinks, 3 whatever, please feel free, you know, just come and go is 4 what we'd like to be able to do. 5 With regard to the structure and the format 6 of the meeting, what I'd like to talk about, first of all, 7 is -- is from the staff perspective and what we've proposed 8 for this meeting. We want to make it clear that the way 9 that we have viewed this process, and in developing the 10 notebook and in developing the information we're going to 11 give you, is that we view this as the staff is doing just 12 that; staffing the budget, preparing it, putting our 13 recommendations together and submitting those to you for 14 consideration. Again, these are jointly-funded operations. 15 Therefore, they need joint input, and they also need to have 16 joint consideration in the final ending with regard to 17 approval or nonapproval. 18 One thing I want to make clear is -- is that 19 it's very clear with the -- I think the City staff and the 20 Council and I want to make it clear to you, is that the 21 staff does not presume that what we present to you is a done 22 deal. What we present to you is our recommendations and 23 what we feel are -- are credible recommendations, we hope. 24 But, in the end, some of these come down to policy 25 decisions, and policy decisions are made by the 8 1 Commissioners and the Council. Therefore, if a policy 2 decision says no, we don't want to go that direction, then 3 it doesn't happen. So, again, I just want to make it very 4 clear that we want this to be -- so you understand from the 5 staff perspective that we're doing this, just as we would 6 with the Council, to both parties; that it's just staffing, 7 it's recommendations and issues like that that we want to 8 put in front of you, and -- for consideration today. And, 9 in addition to that, to talk about how we're going to move 10 forward from here. 11 The notebook is broken out into different 12 programs. What we would like to do is attack each one of 13 those programs individually. What I'm going to do is 14 introduce each one of those programs. The staff support 15 person who's here with each of those programs will also have 16 a little bit to say about the programs and the 17 recommendations, and then, at the end of that, what we would 18 like to do is just open it up for -- again, as I, said open 19 discussion and consideration on your part. Once we wrap up 20 that item, we'd like to just go to the next one and the next 21 one, and work right through the notebook. And, again, we'd 22 like to use the format, simply because some of these are 23 grouped together, because we've got one or two staff members 24 who are solely responsible for one or two programs. Once 25 they're complete, I'm going to release them, and they'll be 9 1 able to go about doing their business. 2 Are there any questions before we get 3 started, or any concerns about how we're going to proceed? 4 Okay. Let me do this, first of all. The first program, 5 which is in Tab Number 3, is going to be Fire Suppression 6 and Emergency Management. One of the things I would like to 7 point out to you before we go too much further is, under Tab 8 2 in your notebooks, there is a spreadsheet, and this 9 spreadsheet is simply -- the goal of this was to consolidate 10 all the programs on one page for you. So, you can look at 11 what Fiscal Year '01, our current year of funding, is; 12 Fiscal Year '02, the proposed, and then what that change 13 might be for that fiscal year. At the bottom, it also shows 14 you what the total budget is for those particular programs. 15 That budget figure is simply there, not to say a certain 16 portion is in one -- in one bailiwick and another in another 17 one. It is simply there so that you can see what the total 18 funds are for that program. Some of those are shared, and 19 in some cases, some of those dollars are not shared. But, 20 again, it's just a matter of being able to look at it and 21 see what those total dollars are. 22 I'm going to go to Tab 3, which is the Fire 23 Suppression and Emergency Management. And, what we have on 24 the screen is nothing more than a very, very abbreviated 25 version of what you have in your packet. The bottom line 10 1 is -- is that with the Fire Suppression, as you're aware, 2 there is currently a contract between the City and the 3 County to provide fire suppression services in and 4 throughout the county, which includes the Kerrville South 5 area. That has been in place for in excess of -- I believe 6 it's 17 years, if I remember right. The Kerrville South 7 area program hasn't been in place for more than seven years. 8 I'm having to check my numbers, make sure I'm right here. 9 The bottom line is that those programs have been up and 10 running. We feel they've been fairly successful. What 11 we're faced with today is -- is that the call volume has 12 increased quite a bit in those areas. One of the things 13 that we're taking a look at is -- is that we're trying to 14 enhance our services in the fire service, not only in the 15 city but in the county, and in addition to that, the other 16 thing that we're trying to do is, again, look at what our 17 funding string will be for that in the future. 18 With that said, one of the things that we 19 have looked at is a proposed change to the contract, and 20 that proposed change would total $25,000 for a year, and 21 that's both for the current contract that has to do with the 22 entire area, and then as well as amending the area with 23 regard to Kerrville South. What I'm going to do is I'm 24 going to ask Chief Holloway to talk to you just for a minute 25 about some of the numbers, call volumes, that kind of stuff, 11 1 and then one of the things I'd like to do as well is talk to 2 you a little bit about on the -- on the fire suppression. 3 In addition to that, the emergency management coordination, 4 which he will talk about as well. The bottom line is -- is 5 both of those functions go hand-in-hand with regard to 6 providing this service. I think a -- a viable example of 7 that was last year when we had our major fire, we saw that 8 the emergency management went into play; that stood up, we 9 said we had the facility up there and running, and it was 10 going and blowing for 24 hours a day for, I guess -- how 11 many weeks were we up there, two? 12 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, total, we were there 13 about two weeks. 14 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. 15 MR. HOLLOWAY: Mostly clean-up. 16 MR. PATTERSON: So, again, it -- it certainly 17 is a viable program and one that we need. And I'll turn it 18 over to the Chief for just a minute, and we'll kind of touch 19 on some of the call volume. 20 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, thank you, Ron. As Ron 21 was saying, the current fire contract, the $50,000, went 22 into effect in 1984, and before that it was a per-call 23 charge. And the problem we got into was, there was a lot of 24 bickering and fighting. Was this call really -- you know, 25 should we pay that or not? In 1984, the City Council 12 1 approached the County and said, "We just want to charge a 2 flat rate, $50,000." And, the -- since that's been in 3 effect, it hasn't changed at all; in fact, going on 18 4 years. Then, when the Kerrville South Volunteer Fire 5 Department went away, the County approached us at that time 6 and asked if we would cover the Kerrville South area until 7 another volunteer fire department could be established, and 8 we said, "Yeah, we can do that." So, we covered it for the 9 first year with no charge, but we found it was expensive, 10 and it looked like this was going to go on, and so we put in 11 a fee of $25,000. 12 The difference between the two contracts, the 13 $50,000 covers the entire county, and we are there to assist 14 the other volunteer fire departments when there's a need, or 15 if we hear that they're not responding because they're -- 16 the volunteers don't show up, then we'll send a fire truck 17 out there. The Kerrville South area, that is -- we will 18 send one truck as a First Responder. If there's a call 19 comes in for that Kerrville South area, then we will 20 immediately send a fire truck out there, and it's staffed 21 with three people. That's the same thing that we send to 22 the county. Only difference -- I mean, to the rest of the 23 county. Only difference is there's a delay for that, and 24 it's usually a call for assistance before we'll send a truck 25 out there. 13 1 One thing that we do that's part of the 2 contract is that we will -- we cover all motor vehicle 3 accidents on the interstate, or up and down that area, and 4 if there's a brush fire, we'll generally send a truck right 5 away. We -- very seldom do we wait for the County to call 6 us for a brush -- whether it's a brush fire or a grass fire. 7 In fact, an example is, this year alone, we made 131 8 responses in the county. Out of that 131, 43 of those is 9 First Responder calls. And what is that is, is we send an 10 ambulance into the county, and if there's not a First 11 Responder out there to help those individuals, we'll send a 12 fire truck, just -- you know, we don't send it all the way 13 out in the county, but within maybe 4 or 5 miles. We did 14 that 43 times this year already. We've made 31 motor 15 vehicle accidents, 20 brush fires, and 11 structure calls, 16 10 vehicle fires. In light of that, most of those calls 17 were on-duty personnel. We've used about 107 hours of 18 overtime, and most of those hours -- I think about 40 of 19 those hours on this house fire we had out here on Harper 20 Road the other day. 21 So, what we're looking at, because of the 22 call volume going up, the equipment is more expensive, cost 23 of personnel is going up. You know, everything's going up 24 for our -- for us. And, you look around the county; there's 25 a lot of homes in the county that are 500,000 to two- or 14 1 three-million-dollar homes out there that we're having to 2 cover in Kerrville South area. For that purpose, we feel 3 like we would like to have an additional $25,000 to help 4 cover some of our costs. Are there any questions on the 5 fire suppression part of it? 6 MR. PATTERSON: One thing, too, to point out, 7 that with regard to the overall budget, in addition to what 8 we're requesting from the staff perspective, on the -- the 9 change in the contract, is in addition to that we're 10 requesting -- and, again, from Council's perspective to 11 consider, is that if the base budget goes from about $2.1 12 million to a little over $2.3 million. And the rationale 13 for that is -- is that we've got, again, the increases for 14 salaries, those type things, within the department, and also 15 the addition of some equipment that we're wanting to bring 16 online this next year. In addition to that, the other 17 issues that we've got going are that we would also like to 18 hopefully, in the future, be able to fund additional 19 personnel. And right now, we can't add any this year, but 20 we're hoping that in the next couple of years, to be able to 21 put some additional personnel online, as well as we're 22 adding additional equipment. 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: To add to that, under Senate 24 Bill 382, which is a -- goes into effect September 1st, 25 that's a two-in, two-out scenario, which means in the -- 15 1 currently, we can go to a structure fire, and we have two 2 guys; they go inside of a burning building and they -- they 3 put the fire out inside. Well, under this new law, they 4 have to have two guys stand outside in case something 5 happens to them. So, that means that there has to be at 6 least four people at that structure before we can even send 7 people in. And, that's part of the rationale for us going 8 to have to get additional people in the future. And, if 9 1710 passes, that's going to -- that's going to require us 10 to do that, so that will happen a lot sooner. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Chief Holloway? 12 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: When you make a run 14 anywhere, county or city, either one, and a -- you go to a 15 house fire, that's considered a run? 16 MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But if you sent two 18 trucks, is that still considered a run? 19 MR. HOLLOWAY: That's one. No, that's still 20 one run. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, thank you. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: In fact, in the city limits, 23 if it's a structure fire, we send two fire trucks, and we do 24 that mostly for manpower. 25 MR. PATTERSON: One of the things, too, that 16 1 you'll notice -- and, again, with the Sheriff's information 2 with you, as well, an incident report will show you not only 3 the incident location and, like, whether it's a structure 4 fire or not, but also all of the apparatus that were sent. 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: And people. 6 MR. PATTERSON: And number of people, as 7 well. The other thing that we included in the budget, too, 8 which I don't know if it had been done in the past, was we 9 also wanted to make sure -- it caused this to be a big 10 document, but the actual budget document that we submitted 11 for consideration. In other words, the justifications for 12 every line item, as well as the summaries. So, what we 13 wanted to be able to share with you was the exact same 14 information that we're -- that goes to Council were given to 15 you, so every line item, on a line-item basis, what's being 16 justified and why. So, again, that's -- we wanted to make 17 clear that you're going to -- you've got exactly the same 18 information now that Council sees, and it's line-by-line. 19 So, any other questions on -- 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I have one. 21 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Chief, you indicated 23 you had -- that you respond anywhere in the county, or just 24 Kerrville South? 25 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, now, we will respond -- 17 1 the Kerrville South area, all that precinct, we will respond 2 immediately. Now, the rest of the county, we will respond 3 if the volunteer fire department requests our assistance, 4 or -- say, for example, we get a call in Center Point and 5 we -- we hear them tone Center Point out. After four 6 minutes, if we don't hear Center Point responding to that 7 call, then we'll send a truck. And, if -- of course, if 8 they start -- if they respond, we -- get there before we do, 9 well, they'll turn us back. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you. 11 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. 12 MR. PATTERSON: And if you're turned back, 13 that's not an incident, correct? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: That's correct. 15 MR. PATTERSON: So there won't be an incident 16 report if they're turned -- even though they might roll part 17 of the way and get turned back, we don't consider that one 18 of the incidents that's used in the numbers, sir. 19 MAYOR FINE: Does that happen often? 20 MR. HOLLOWAY: Not very often. Usually, if 21 we respond, we go ahead to the scene, 'cause they generally 22 need our help. Part of the problem, and I'm sure that the 23 Commissioners know that, in volunteers are they're kind of a 24 dying breed. You know, it's hard to get people to volunteer 25 any more. So, the volunteer fire departments are having a 18 1 real difficult time getting firefighters to come help them. 2 Of course, everybody has to work -- 3 MS. SULLIVAN: That's right. All right. I'm 4 sorry for interrupting you. How many volunteer fire 5 departments are there in the county? 6 MR. HOLLOWAY: Six? Seven. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Seven. Four 8 Commissioners' precincts, but there's seven. 9 MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. 10 MR. HOLLOWAY: The -- any more questions on 11 that part? 12 MR. PATTERSON: Let me explain, as well, 13 on -- on the contract dollars, I just want you to understand 14 that we didn't just pull a number out of the air. So you 15 understand, what we did was we took -- we took a step back 16 and we looked at the general contract, and then we looked at 17 the Kerrville South contract. And we tried to look at 18 responses to those areas, you know, and what the impacts 19 were with regard to, you know, what the call level was 20 within each of those areas. And then we kind of backed into 21 it and said, Okay, from that perspective, what are the 22 increases in those areas? And then we applied that, and 23 that's where the $25,000 figure came from. Okay? The other 24 figure for the changes in -- in this number, which is the 25 overall budget, 2.3, that has all of the increases and 19 1 everything else all wrapped into it for the Council's 2 purposes. So -- and the equipment that we discussed. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, is the $25,000 4 increase in the Kerrville South portion or in the county 5 portion, or split between? 6 MR. PATTERSON: It's actually -- the 7 recommendation is to split that, which would take $20,000 of 8 that in the general contract, and then $5,000 on the 9 Kerrville South. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 11 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Again, that's how 12 we divided up the numbers. Any other questions? 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'd like to make a 14 comment that I'm certainly in support of it. That's my 15 precinct. And, not only that; more importantly, that's 16 where my house lives. And -- 17 MR. HOLLOWAY: But you're in the city limits, 18 Buster, so it doesn't matter. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, I'm not. 20 MR. HOLLOWAY: Did you move out? 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Oh, you didn't know 22 that? 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: No. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's what I thought 25 this was all about. 20 1 MR. HOLLOWAY: We would have jacked it up 2 more. 3 (Laughter.) 4 MR. PATTERSON: All right. 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: The -- is that it? All right. 6 The Emergency Management Coordinator position is the -- if 7 cities and counties take federal funding at all, they're 8 required to have an Emergency Operation Plan and a 9 Coordinator, and I have a -- an Assistant Coordinator, which 10 is my Training Officer, and they will fund part of that. 11 They'll Fund 50 percent. And, what happens is that the 12 County will take the other half of that 50 percent, and the 13 City will pay the other, which ends up being about 14 25 percent each, and what we're required to do is keep the 15 Emergency Operations Plan updated. We have to review the 16 annexes -- there are 21 annexes -- every year. We have to 17 update them every four years. And the same thing goes with 18 the plan, itself. The plan is pretty thick. Along with 19 that, we have to attend certain schools. We have to make 20 sure that every time there's a change in the law or the 21 rules that the State -- or actually the feds, and then down 22 to the State -- makes, we have to keep that updated. 23 My job as a Coordinator is not really to tell 24 anybody, you know, "You have to go do this and you have to 25 do that." My job is, if it's in the county, it's the 21 1 Judge's responsibility; he's in charge of that. If it's in 2 the city limits, the mayor is in a charge of that. And if 3 it's in the city limits of Ingram, the Ingram mayor is in 4 charge of that. So, we have to kind of work together, and 5 my job is to try to make it all come together, to coordinate 6 it all. 7 We have -- to give you an example, law 8 enforcement. The -- the Police Chief is in charge of that 9 annex, but he's not -- when we have an emergency, he's not 10 in charge of the Sheriff's Department, he's not in charge of 11 D.P.S. He just is there, a person to go -- contact person 12 that's in the E.O.C., Emergency Operation Center, to go 13 through and say, "We need more law enforcement." If he's 14 tapped out, then he'll get with the Sheriff or the D.P.S. 15 sergeant. And, so, part of this is in -- and the reason 16 that, as you can see, our -- our total budget is $20,000, 17 and, we're asking -- the City pays $4,280 and the County is 18 $3,720. So, basically, this is a -- just something to kind 19 of keep us going and get -- a good example was the county 20 fire we had last year -- last September. That was a joint 21 effort between many, many agencies, and not only city and 22 county, but state and some federal agencies. And, 23 eventually they will come down here and meet with the 24 volunteer fire departments and see about funding some of 25 their expenses. I just talked to them last week, and 22 1 they're really snowed under. This Houston deal set them way 2 back, and they're just having a real tough time. Fact is, 3 they haven't even paid all the brush fires from 1999. So -- 4 but they say, you know, they haven't forgotten about us. 5 Are there any questions on that portion of the budget? 6 MR. PATTERSON: Those two rates that you see 7 there that are shown for both the City and County are not in 8 -- those are flat, from last year. 9 MR. HOLLOWAY: No change. 10 MR. PATTERSON: There is no proposed change. 11 MR. HOLLOWAY: In fact, there is a plan that 12 -- that's the entire Emergency Operations Plan right there. 13 MR. PATTERSON: If anyone is interested in 14 it, I've got copies available of the Emergency Management 15 Plan. 16 MR. HOLLOWAY: Very, very exciting reading. 17 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. About three weeks 18 after I got here, I think, Raymond came in one day and goes, 19 "Oh, by the way, you got some responsibilities in here. You 20 need to read it." So, it's interesting. Any questions on 21 that? Okay, we will press forward. We know y'all have 22 another meeting, so we're going to try and keep on track 23 here. 24 The next one is under Tab 4, which is 25 Emergency Medical Services, Medical Director, and First 23 1 Responders. What you'll note is, as I said, we tried to 2 lump these together as they related to each other, as well 3 as responsibilities. With regard to the EMS, let me point 4 out that we do currently have a proposal on the table, and 5 our proposal that we want the Council to consider is that we 6 are looking at the proposal to add an additional transfer 7 crew. And, for those who are not familiar with that term, 8 the bottom line, is -- is we have our EMS crews, which are 9 those individuals who are called out of the fire station to 10 go and respond to a critical incident. Then we have the 11 transfer crews, which are those individuals who actually 12 will take an individual from, let's say, our hospital to San 13 Antonio, or vice-versa, to be able to transport them for 14 additional care. 15 One of the things that we have discovered is 16 -- and that we're realizing is that the call volume on the 17 number of transfers is going up, and it's beginning to tap 18 into our emergency medical services. So, our proposal is -- 19 is that we will add an additional transfer crew. That 20 transfer crew will then alleviate some of the burden on the 21 EMS. They will be able to stay in-house, in town, and to 22 serve the city and the county instead of handling transfers. 23 The idea there is -- is that we plan to seek a grant to fund 24 the ambulance, and then in addition to that, the equipment 25 that goes on board. Right now, this year, we put a new 24 1 ambulance in service, and the way that we have written our 2 bid specifications was -- is that we would get a trade-in 3 allowance back on that. Our game plan would be -- under our 4 proposal would be that instead of giving them the trade- 5 in -- that's a value of $15,000 -- that what we would do 6 is -- is we would hang onto that old ambulance, okay, the 7 trade-in ambulance, and we would put that over to the side 8 as a reserve ambulance. 9 One of the things we do not have today is we 10 don't have a reserve ambulance. So, the idea would be -- is 11 keep that trade-in, not give it to them. Pay the $15,000, 12 keep the trade-in, keep it equipped and ready to go. Then 13 get the grant to buy another ambulance, which puts a -- 14 another ambulance in service, so we have a new ambulance in 15 service with transfer, and we have a backup ambulance, based 16 on this plan. If we get the grant, we would not need to see 17 any rate increases for EMS services this year; however, next 18 year there would need to be an increase in those fees. 19 Okay. In comparing those fees to other agencies, they are 20 still reasonable, even with an increase. The original game 21 plan, when the EMS service came online, was that there would 22 be an increase once a year for five years. Well, what's 23 happened is we're way down the road, and there was only one 24 increase after the first year, and no additional increases 25 have been applied, so it's been stagnant for many, many 25 1 years with regard to that rate for the EMS service. 2 So, again, with this game plan, we think we 3 can go another year with no increase, and increase our 4 service by adding an entire ambulance and a crew to be able 5 to help with the transfers, the idea there being that in -- 6 in Fiscal Year '03, then we would apply an increase at that 7 point in time of approximately 10 percent. That program, we 8 feel, is reasonable. We feel like, again, our -- our rates 9 would still be reasonable, and it does twofold things for 10 us. One, it alleviates the burden off the EMS crews, which 11 leaves them in town to service us for what we need them for, 12 and then also creates a -- the ability to have additional 13 runs for the transfers. But, it actually does a third thing 14 for us; it also then creates a backup for us. We now have a 15 backup ambulance which, again, we don't have today. So, 16 that -- that, in essence, is what we're trying to do. The 17 Medical Director is my -- am I misstating something? 18 MR. HOLLOWAY: No. 19 MR. PATTERSON: That's okay. The Medical 20 Director on that one, the bottom line there is there's been 21 some recent negotiations, and that position now -- the total 22 on that is $25,000, versus a higher rate, as it was in the 23 past. So the 11,3 split that we would do would actually be 24 less than was funded last year, and the remainder of that is 25 picked up -- I have an agreement within the city of Ingram, 26 1 so that covers that. So, we've actually got a reduction 2 there, a small one. The Medical Director is required as 3 part of the EMS program. We are required that, if we have 4 an EMS program or a First Responder program or anything like 5 that where we have medical responses, we have to have the 6 Medical Director on board and available for that. The 7 Medical Director is a physician who handles those services 8 for us. 9 The First Responder program, that program, as 10 you're aware of, is responding out into the county, someone 11 who can actually get there first. The idea of First 12 Responder is to provide at least EMT-level medical care to 13 that person until paramedics arrive. This program, I 14 promise you, saves lives and is a very good program. In 15 this program, one thing I want to point out is there's 16 actually three pieces to the budget, and that is, there is 17 the -- the base portion of it, which is the entire EMS 18 budget and all the support that comes out of there, you 19 know, the changing out equipment on the First Responders, 20 the response of the EMS crews and the paramedics and all of 21 that. Then there's a second piece, which is this portion of 22 the EMS Coordinator, a quarter paid by the County, remainder 23 picked up in EMS budget. And then there's the third piece, 24 and that's the equipment that's needed for those First 25 Responders, which the County would consider in their budget. 27 1 So, that's how it's broken into the three 2 pieces, and I think even staff -- it took us a while. We 3 finally got it squared away. We now fully understand that 4 there's three distinct pieces to that. What I will do is, 5 I'm going to let the Chief and his able EMS Coordinator 6 speak to these issues in a little bit more detail. 7 MR. HOLLOWAY: Under the EMS program, the 8 only thing I might like to say different or additional to 9 what Ron mentioned is there's no tax money that goes into 10 that program, talking about the EMS part of it. That's all 11 the user fee, which means if we never come pick anybody up 12 in this room, it will never cost you a penny for us to run 13 EMS. If we come pick you up, then that's where the charge 14 comes in, and that's how we pay for this service. When we 15 took over in 1994, we had no idea where we were going to go 16 with this. We were a little bit scared that we weren't 17 going to make it, and that's the reason we decided we would 18 raise the rates 5 percent each year for five years. We also 19 thought that if we were lucky, we'd get about a 60 percent 20 collection rate. We've been consistently over 70 percent. 21 Right now, we're right at 80 percent, which is pretty 22 unheard of in the EMS profession. Most of the fire chiefs 23 that I talk to that deal with this, they say they get 50 to 24 55 percent on their collection rate, so we're doing real 25 well. And I think part of that is because no tax money goes 28 1 into it. 2 We also -- under this, we were able -- we 3 have been able to hire three additional people. When we 4 took over EMS, we started with 15 people. We found that we 5 needed some relief in there, because of the turnover and -- 6 and time off, and so we hired three additional people to 7 that budget. And, even at that, we were able to stay ahead 8 without raising the rates, so we haven't raised the rates 9 since 1995, and we're not really planning on doing that till 10 next year. And we're not sure what that rate will be, 11 depending on what we recover with our transfer crew. What 12 we'd like to -- the perfect scenario would be to have two 13 emergency ambulances in this county at any time. That 14 almost never happens. Very seldom, I mean. We usually have 15 one ambulance in the county at any given time, and the 16 reason for that is we're having to take transfers back and 17 forth to San Antonio. And, it's not only our transfer crew, 18 but it's our emergency crews, and they rotate in and out 19 taking transfers back and forth to San Antonio. 20 So, the reason we're proposing to add another 21 transfer crew is to try to keep those emergency ambulances 22 in town as much as possible. Also, the -- the crew that 23 we're going to hire, they will be certified and have the 24 ability to make emergency calls for us when we're out, so it 25 will actually give us four emergency ambulances in the city 29 1 and county sometime during the day. Now, those transfer 2 crews work 8:00 to 5:00, five days a week, whereas emergency 3 crews work 24-hour shifts. 4 The Medical Director -- what happened with 5 the Medical Director is, we negotiated the salary. It 6 started out at $30,000 a year, and we negotiated that down 7 to $25,000. The -- on the First Responders program, the 8 reason for the increase in the salary that we're requesting 9 for the Coordinator is that when we took over in 1994, that 10 figure that y'all have been paying was put in there based on 11 that -- his salary in 1994, and that hasn't changed -- 12 hasn't increased, even though the salary's gone up. So, for 13 -- since I guess 1994, the -- the salary portion of that 14 one-fourth has stayed the same for the County, but his 15 salary's gone up quite a bit. And I'm going to turn -- and, 16 of course, Kyle met with y'all last week and talked to y'all 17 a little bit about the First Responder program. I'm going 18 to turn that over to him, unless y'all have any questions. 19 Questions? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the grant y'all are 21 seeking, when will you know when that grant's going to come 22 through, and what's the plan if it doesn't come through? 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, we're hoping -- we 24 should find out something next month. And, if the -- if the 25 grant does not go through, then we'll have to raise the 30 1 rates 10 percent this year. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the plan is to add 3 that transfer crew regardless? 4 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then hope you can figure 6 out -- I mean, I support that, 'cause I think it's really 7 important. 8 MR. PATTERSON: Assuming that we get approval 9 in our budget, what we would -- again, as he said, what we 10 plan to do would be that, even without the grant, move 11 the -- move this rate increase that's out -- actually out 12 here in '03, shove it up a year and go ahead and do it. 13 Because, again, I can't -- for that increased amount, I 14 think we get a lot of benefit. And that is, again, we keep 15 those emergency crews in town, we have another transfer 16 tech, and we end up with a backup ambulance that we've never 17 had. So, to get all that benefit for that change, I think 18 that's why I think this program is really, really 19 beneficial. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I agree. I mean, I think 21 it's one of the things, with the county growing as fast as 22 it is, to have another crew available -- because the county 23 calls tend to take a lot more time, and to get another crew 24 available I think is desperately needed right now. 25 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah. The only other way to 31 1 do it would be to subsidize it. I don't think anyone wants 2 to do that. Before we took over EMS, the previous 3 company -- you know, we were paying $37,000 each, City and 4 County, to help subsidize them. It went up every year. 5 Buster was around, I think. Every year he'd come to us 6 wanting more money. We haven't done that. 7 MR. PATTERSON: The -- I think the total 8 change here on that, I think, if I remember right, is 9 about -- about $3,600 change with regard to -- because of 10 this change right here on the salary item here. When you 11 add those two together, that's about a $3,600 change here, 12 and then to make this program work, that program is about -- 13 about $269,000, almost $270,000. And again, though, 14 remember that if we get the grant, we can absorb that 15 $270,000 in -- in the current fee schedule. If not, we'd 16 shift that over and put the 10 percent on it, and we can 17 still absorb it in the fee schedule. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have one request, 19 Chief. Now that the Commissioners Court is clear that we 20 pay for a quarter of the First Responder salary and half of 21 the Medical Director's salary, as liaison between the 22 Commissioners Court and these programs, I would request that 23 we be more involved in the processes of hiring and firing -- 24 or not necessarily firing, but the hiring of these -- like, 25 the Medical Director. I understand there's one coming up 32 1 possibly soon. 2 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That we'd get a little 4 more involved in that and be a part of the process. 5 Sometimes these guys are interested in knowing about that, 6 and when I don't have anything to tell them, the Judge is 7 pretty mean about that kind of stuff, and so I -- that's 8 just my request, is that we -- we become a little more 9 involved and keep that relationship. 10 MR. PATTERSON: I think what we do here is, 11 just like we did in hiring this gentleman, that, you know -- 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Kyle. 13 MR. PATTERSON: Kyle, yeah. That what we do 14 is, again, have that invitation to come to the -- to the 15 interviews and that kind of stuff. Yes, absolutely. 16 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Great. Great. Thank 17 you very much. 18 MAYOR FINE: But you've also got to be there 19 when we fire people. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're the nice guys on 21 this thing. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: Fact is, what I was going to 23 say, Buster, I'll send you a list of names and y'all can 24 fire somebody. Only kidding. I'm only kidding. 25 MR. PATTERSON: Don't make Kyle nervous. 33 1 MR. YOUNG: To go along a little bit with 2 talking about medical care in the county, you -- you can't 3 provide proper medical care without your First Responders. 4 These guys and ladies, they get up at 2:00 or 3 o'clock in 5 the morning, respond to a call and save lives. If the 6 county people had to rely strictly on Kerrville EMS, as wide 7 as our county is and the response times, the death rate 8 would greatly be increased. The First Responders -- I have 9 about 20 to 25 First Responders that are equipped and ready 10 to go, and that do a wonderful job in the county. They save 11 lives. All of our guys are very, very happy with the 12 program. I've met with them, we've addressed some of their 13 continuing education needs. I'm going to be instructing 14 them and getting those brought up to speed and to where 15 everybody will be current. 16 The one thing that we are requesting in the 17 budget is another $1,500 for equipment. I have four 18 personnel that are certified that are willing to help and 19 assist in areas in the county where we are shorter on First 20 Responders. They're ready to go, but they don't have 21 equipment, so that's why we're requesting that increase in 22 that line item. In several areas of the county, we have a 23 lot of First Responders. I never have to worry about an 24 ambulance going out there; I know there's going to be 25 somebody there to help them. In other areas of the county, 34 1 it's not as comfortable a feeling for me when they go out 2 there, because there's just not that many people. 3 Additionally, we had discussed later on next 4 year, year after it, putting on a class possibly for more 5 EMS and getting more people online to help respond. You can 6 never have too many First Responders in a -- especially in 7 an area like we have. It's a great program. They save 8 lives, and I think the $1,500 would supply the equipment for 9 four First Responders. The equipment consists of a bag, O-2 10 regulator, some sort of a pager or radio, and some supplies. 11 Currently, the First Responders are getting the supplies 12 from the City of Kerrville. We supply them if they have a 13 -- they come in, they've used the C-collar, then we'll just 14 give them another C-collar to put back in that bag. They're 15 sundry items that are -- oxygen masks, things like that, we 16 supply them. But, that's the increase there; the $1,500 is 17 for equipment. 18 MR. PATTERSON: Any questions? 19 MAYOR FINE: There's been some discussion 20 about some additional AED machines. 21 MR. YOUNG: We would really like to see AED's 22 there. They are expensive. There are several grant 23 programs that we can look at to purchase those. They are -- 24 most of the ones that I'm aware of are either matching 25 grants, but there is grant money out there that -- that 35 1 funds them wholly, and that will just take some research in 2 applying for them. I would love for every Sheriff's car to 3 have an AED, every police car to have an AED, and every 4 First Responder to have an AED. I think that would be very 5 beneficial, but it's a -- it's a very costly item. 6 MR. PATTERSON: As we said, we are going to 7 look into grant funding. Raymond was telling me this 8 morning that, on another item that we've been working grants 9 on, we've got a couple of items that we are going to be able 10 to fund. I have grants that are above and beyond equipment 11 that's in here. So, again, that would be good, you know, to 12 continue to seek that. We've been very successful in P.D. 13 grants. It's just the fire service, there's just not as 14 many of them and you've got to search under the covers a lot 15 harder to find them, but we're looking. Thank you. Are 16 there any other questions on fire, EMS, or anything? 'Cause 17 I'm going to kick these gentlemen loose. They've got some 18 other commitments. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks a lot. 20 MAYOR FINE: Thank you, guys. 21 MR. PATTERSON: Appreciate it. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: Thank you. 23 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Then I would ask that 24 we go to Tab 5, which is going to be the 216th Judicial 25 District Narcotics Task Force. This one is pretty 36 1 straightforward. The -- it is a grant program, and the 2 bottom line is -- is that -- that the City and the County 3 and the other agencies who participate -- literally, the way 4 that their funding levels are established are based on how 5 many people you got participating in the program and paying 6 those salaries and benefits. I'm going to let Dane speak to 7 this one for a moment; he's got a little bit more 8 information on it for you, and we'll kind of go from there. 9 MR. TUNE: This is a relatively easy one. At 10 the tab here, 5, that first sheet gives you the information. 11 There's four counties; there's Kerr, Gillespie, Bandera, and 12 Kendall, and there's five cities, Kerrville, Ingram, 13 Fredericksburg, Bandera, and Boerne. The Task Force was 14 established in December of '87, so it's been around for 15 quite a while. By the way, the grant you're looking at 16 here, this budget, actually both entities have already 17 passed this one. This is not one that's been in question. 18 It went into effect June 1st of this year and will come back 19 up next year at that time, so these numbers are pretty well 20 frozen, 'cause both of you have voted on them. 21 You'll notice, on the City of Kerrville, our 22 portion is $37,126. That's up; last year the City was 23 responsible for $32,564. Kerr County's is $38,837. That's 24 down from $39,803 last year. That's $966. You'll notice 25 that there's a total grant match of that $184,784, and 37 1 that's from all the different entities. And, the two 2 numbers I just gave you are Kerrville's and Kerr County's. 3 The grant, itself, is down. Last year's grant was $682,579, 4 and that is because of funding from the State; it was 5 downsized. Both of the entities are -- or all of the 6 entities are simply paying for salaries and benefits of 7 their employees that participate in the grant, so we're all 8 handed this thing together. 9 It is interesting to note that -- if you look 10 at the last sheet, some of those, you'll notice that this is 11 very labor-intensive. The personnel -- 81 percent of the 12 entire budget is people out on the streets, so there's very 13 little on operation and maintenance and very little on 14 capital. It's just a lot of people out there. Your front 15 sheet, I won't go into it. It will show you the amount of 16 drugs seized and the arrests made and the cases made. So, 17 this will not actually come up again until next spring with 18 the grants y'all will be looking at again whether to fund 19 for another year, but these do have the budget numbers that 20 are dropped in for both entities to accomplish the next 12 21 months. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dane, does all of the 23 cities and counties in the 216th District participate? 24 MR. TUNE: As far as I know, yeah, I guess 25 that's right. Now, I believe it has, in the past, been 38 1 larger; there were some extra counties in there, but I 2 believe all these counties do participate at the current 3 time. It has changed over the years, though. 4 MR. PATTERSON: I think the -- the C.J.D. 5 actually, I think -- I stand to be corrected on this, 'cause 6 I'm stepping out a little bit, but I believe that that 216th 7 District was actually redrawn some time ago. That pushed 8 some of the communities or counties out. Whether they were 9 picked up somewhere else or not, I don't know. I -- you may 10 be familiar with it. 11 MR. MOTLEY: I think the 198th was redrawn. 12 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. 13 MR. MOTLEY: I believe it was the 198th. 14 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. So it was a different 15 one redrawn. 16 MR. LAUGHLIN: Kimble County was a 17 participant until about three years ago, and then I think 18 they dropped out. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's -- yeah, that's 20 it. That's what I was thinking. 21 MR. LAUGHLIN: Kimble County dropped out. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They weren't a part of 23 the 216th District, though. 24 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: They were just kind of 39 1 a sideline. 2 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you. 4 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. Anything else on 5 this one? 6 MAYOR FINE: How are the -- the participation 7 levels set? As far as -- I mean, obviously, the City of 8 Kerrville and Kerr County are the bulk of the -- 9 MR. TUNE: Yeah. If you look at the last 10 sheet, you'll see how it's -- all the sources are matched, 11 and basically that's all we're doing. We're matching to the 12 State on the grant. Now, I guess what you're asking is who 13 decides -- 14 MAYOR FINE: Who decided we paid and how 15 much? 16 MR. TUNE: We probably -- 17 MR. PATTERSON: There is a -- there is a 18 formula basis based on the number of participants from the 19 various agencies. Now, what that exact formula is, I can't 20 tell you off the top of my head, but I'll be glad to get it 21 for you. 22 MAYOR FINE: But don't they all benefit 23 equally, as far as the resources of the task force? 24 MR. TUNE: Well, they operate as one, in that 25 sense. I know we're the -- the grantee, and what we do, of 40 1 course -- the function of the City, besides this, we manage 2 all the books and vest the money and do all that, and -- as 3 far as the City, because we set the grant for the entire 4 group. But, how -- you know, how many -- how we've done 5 which officer and that kind of stuff, we'd probably need to 6 ask the Chief or ask the task force. 7 MR. PATTERSON: Well, and part of it is, too, 8 is they're going to look at seizures, where they happened, 9 those type of things. Again, you could make an argument 10 that we all benefit equally, 'cause the whole region is 11 better. 12 MAYOR FINE: Right. 13 MR. PATTERSON: But I believe, if I remember 14 right -- and, again, I stand to be corrected. I'm fumbling 15 a little bit with this one with regard to the formula, but 16 if I remember right, you know, they're going to look at the 17 areas where seizure occurred, you know, and how many people 18 are involved with regard to those agencies. And, why 19 they're not all exactly equal, I can't tell you for sure, 20 but I can find out for you. 21 MAYOR FINE: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Population has 23 something to do with it, too. 24 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, I believe 25 population, I think seizures. I think, again, number of 41 1 people participating. I think there's -- all of that fits 2 in, but I would have to check into it for you for sure. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Actually, I think it's 4 a lot simpler than that. I think, you know, like, the City 5 of Bandera chooses to maybe or maybe not have a person on 6 the Task Force. 7 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: County of Bandera may 9 have one, and Boerne might have one, and Kendall County have 10 one representative on the task force. We choose to have two 11 and three, and you all choose to have three and four. It's 12 just the way -- 13 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- way it's worked 15 out. 16 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. I mean, it all does 17 come down to the agency deciding they can opt in and out. 18 You don't have to participate. 19 MAYOR FINE: I guess my point was, they're 20 still getting the same benefit of the Task Force, whether 21 they have one person involved in it or four, and yet these 22 two agencies are paying the bulk, when the other agencies 23 will get the assistance from everybody else who's involved 24 in it. I mean, it seems kind of like if they're not 25 participating as much, they should be paying more instead of 42 1 paying less. 2 MR. PATTERSON: Yes. 3 MAYOR FINE: 'Cause we're going to be sending 4 our guys over there to assist them. And -- but yet they 5 send them home and they still are -- they're still writing a 6 little check. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would bet, though, 8 Stephen, that the majority of that -- that's probably done 9 in Kerr County and Kerrville. I bet we have the lion's 10 share of the work and the efforts probably done here. I 11 imagine Boerne -- I mean, just 'cause I-10 corridor is where 12 a lot of it seems to happen, the seizures, Boerne. You 13 know, I don't know that anybody gets a free ride. 14 MAYOR FINE: Okay. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it might be good to 16 take a look at it as to how the funding is decided. 17 MAYOR FINE: Yeah. 18 MR. PATTERSON: What we will do, the staff 19 will -- we'll do a -- a staff report on it and tell you 20 exactly how that's done. We'll get that back out, both to 21 the Council and the Commissioners -- 22 MAYOR FINE: Okay. 23 MR. PATTERSON: -- so you know. Have you got 24 that, Dane? We'll do that, get it to them. Okay? I 25 apologize at my fumbling on it a little bit. 43 1 MAYOR FINE: That's fine. 2 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Anything else on that 3 one? We'll try and get that staff report out to you by the 4 first part of next week. Okay. The next item, the airport, 5 which is under Tab 6. As you're aware, again, this one is a 6 jointly-funded project, a project that is fairly large in 7 scope. And I mean that in terms of the complexity as well 8 as the dollars. It is a -- it's a major undertaking. What 9 I've given you up here is just a very quick summary of 10 impacts with regard to '02 and '03, and the reason for that 11 is -- is that there are some commitments that would be made 12 in '02 that would linger over into '03 and have additional 13 fiscal impact. Megan's going to talk to you a little bit 14 more about that in just a moment. The bottom line is -- is 15 that we're at a point where a decision needs to be made, and 16 that decision is, what else do we want to do at the airport? 17 Do we still want to continue to see it grow? You know, 18 issues like, you know, do we want to put more apron out 19 there, ramp area? Because ramp area generates revenue. Or 20 do you want to not do that? I mean, the bottom line is -- 21 is that these two agencies need to have a philosophical and 22 policy discussion about that, and where we want to go in the 23 future. 24 Again, I think that, with regard to the fact 25 that with the current grants we've got under way, with the 44 1 fact that we know the E.I.C. is looking at putting the sewer 2 infrastructure onto the airport -- and, again, that's 3 preliminary, but they are considering it. And, in addition 4 to that, the fact that we are now trying to get ourselves 5 squared away on being able to be more proactive when we are 6 approached by users, that there may be some potential for 7 additional revenue to help offset some of these costs. But, 8 you take all that said, you still have the issue of -- even 9 if you get a 10-to-1 -- $10 to $1 grant match, you still 10 have that dollar match. And if it's a big-dollar amount, 11 that ends up being a big match. So, it's something to 12 consider. 13 I'm going to let Megan talk a little bit 14 about the operations in general, talk about some of these 15 specific projects. Some are safety-related, some are not. 16 Let her describe that for you, and then we'll talk a little 17 bit more about it and the policy questions. Megan? 18 MS. CAFFALL: I'd like to just tell you where 19 this grant came from. Scott Aviation Division in Austin 20 programs our airport various improvements, and 11 years ago 21 the airport accepted a grant for a 1,000-foot runway 22 extension, which puts our main runway into 100 foot wide, 23 6,000 feet long. That classifies us as a transport airport. 24 Along with bigger runway, we got bigger aircraft. And, in 25 the last three years, we've been reclassified as a bigger 45 1 aircraft airport, and with that came bigger safety areas. 2 Our runway protection zones, especially on Runway 12, are 3 now off airport property, and so we have an obligation, for 4 safety and other reasons, to correct what they call these 5 deficiencies. They're dimensional criteria deficiencies. 6 And, so, on these grants, the two years are -- are combined, 7 because it's a large grant totaling about $3.4 million. 8 The first year, the $308,000 is for the 9 engineering for the work on the second-year grant. The 10 $650,000 is for the property acquisition to correct our 11 safety areas and runway protection zones. So, out of this 12 grant, on the other item on Fiscal Year '03 is the overlay 13 of Runway 12/30. Three years ago, we had an overlay on that 14 runway -- that's our main runway -- and we were hoping to 15 have 7 inches of asphalt by the time we were through. 16 During that construction period, we had base failure on over 17 25 percent of the runway, and we now have only 2 inches of 18 asphalt on that -- on about 25 percent of our main runway. 19 Our airport facility directory of what the F.A.A. gives the 20 pilots so they can look at whether they can fly their 21 aircraft into Kerrville lists our main runway as 22 25,000 pounds, single-wheel weight limit, which, if you want 23 to do the math and do a dual tandem, is 50,000. That's 24 right at what we say we're getting now, not what we are 25 being reclassified as. So, we really need to do the 46 1 additional asphalt on the main runway, because we still 2 aren't where we need to be right now. 3 The only item on the two grant years that's 4 not really dimensionally or safety-related is the ramp 5 expansion, $700,000 for the extension of the ramp apron. 6 And that's to put approximately -- extend the ramp from 7 where it is now down towards Mr. Brinkman's hangar, which 8 will give us the opportunity to lease more or build more 9 hangars on the airport to generate -- to do ground leases, 10 so other people can build hangars and generate more airport 11 revenue. Also bring in more based aircraft and some fuel; 12 indirectly that will increase our airport revenues. So, 13 these two year's grants are Aviation Division's way of 14 helping us correct what deficiencies we have and to try and 15 help us get ahead with developing the airport. Do y'all 16 have any questions? 17 MR. PATTERSON: There's a lot of technical 18 terms. But, I mean, the bottom line is -- is that, as she 19 said on the engineering, that engineering sets up the 20 following year, is really what that does. And the property 21 acquisition, where it talks about for runway protection 22 zone, is what RPZ stands for, the bottom line is -- is that 23 the longer your runway, or not -- even if you don't even 24 extend the length of the runway, but if you have an 25 instrument approach system that allows a more precise 47 1 approach, that zone gets longer, and what happens is it 2 grows outside the property line. What the F.A.A. requires 3 you to do is come in and say, Okay, well, you have to have 4 control of that property, so nothing goes up, or there's no 5 safety issues underneath it, you know, all of those kinds of 6 things. 7 So, again, as -- not only as the airport 8 physically grows; as the capacity of the airport, in terms 9 of larger aircraft or the instrument approach, as that 10 increases, you also get these increased protection areas 11 that you have to have. Now -- you know, so the question 12 comes, do we want to continue to move forward and have 13 additional aircraft be able to land there? Because, again, 14 your restrictions -- it says can they be larger, then you 15 allow more aircraft. And if more aircraft are allowed, then 16 can you base more aircraft? Those are the -- all of the 17 philosophical questions and policy questions to ask. But, 18 again, all of that -- again, '02 sets up everything in '03, 19 with the overlay. The overlay, to make it in very simple, 20 simplistic terms, is it needs more asphalt on it to hold 21 more weight, because you got heavier aircraft to be able to 22 go in. And, everything's load-rated, as they call it. 23 The marking of the runway, again, those are 24 just simply markings on the runway for the aircraft to use. 25 The ramp apron is the one, too, that you get into a -- if 48 1 you add additional apron, you can put additional users out 2 there. Again, that question is, do we want to expand that 3 user base? You know, again, it's a policy question. 4 Relocating the entrance road -- 5 MS. CAFFALL: That one, our entrance road now 6 is in the RPZ for landing on Runway 30. It's just one of 7 those things that happens, where we got reclassified as 8 having larger aircraft, that area got bigger, and the 9 airport entrance road is in it now. We do have enough 10 property that the airport already owns to just move the road 11 back, but it does need to be moved. 12 MR. PATTERSON: And then the other question, 13 beyond these two years, is stop here? Or do you continue 14 forward? Again, this is all stuff we would like some 15 dialogue on. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, to get started, I 17 mean, it seems to me that every time we upgrade the airport, 18 we get bigger planes, we get upgraded to meet -- you know, 19 so it's never -- I mean, the more you upgrade, the more it 20 needs to keep on going and going and going. 21 MR. PATTERSON: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I guess -- you know, 23 I don't know that much about the airport. I mean, Larry and 24 Bill, I think, are our liaisons on the Airport Board. You 25 know, I don't really have any good feel for where we need to 49 1 go as a County/City operation on the size of that airport. 2 To me, you don't need to keep getting bigger and bigger and 3 bigger unless there's an economic reason to do so. And I'd 4 have to really rely on -- I need more information before I 5 can even give an intelligent dialogue. 6 MR. PATTERSON: I can tell you from -- from 7 my experience, the -- without additional hangar space, 8 without additional ramp space to put those hangars on and 9 access to them, and, quite frankly, without finishing out 10 the infrastructure on the airport, which is the sewer line 11 and those kinds of things for all the potential users -- you 12 take those out of the picture, you take those off the table 13 and you say, "Well, we're not going to have ramp space and 14 we're not going to have the sewer and we're not going to do 15 those." If you don't go that route, you probably are 16 wasting money. Because, again, if you want to grow the 17 airport, you want to grow the economic base to the airport. 18 That's what it's all about, and what it can bring into 19 Kerrville and Kerr County. So, I would say that -- you 20 know, I'd love -- I think if the decision's made we want to 21 continue to -- I'm not going to say grow it, but at least 22 establish some sort of a base for economic development out 23 there, I think those other items have to happen as well. 24 MR. WAMPLER: I think -- to maybe carry 25 Jonathan's comments a little further, I think I've -- I 50 1 agree with him, in that I believe that the airport is 2 potentially a strong asset for the City and the County, and 3 it's one that we obviously can't neglect. But I'm a little 4 bit -- well, I'm ignorant with regards to airports in 5 general, what they can do for a community, other than 6 provide a base for economic activity. So, I guess what he's 7 saying and what I'd like to see is some sort of a plan 8 written out or presented in a fashion that could say, Well, 9 here are some potential benefits with potential dollar 10 impacts on the community. What are costs that we put into 11 the airport and what will we receive in terms of economic 12 improvement? Before we decide that we want to get bigger, 13 have more apron space, for instance, or more hangars. Now, 14 I do understand from talking to you that, you know, that may 15 be attractive for people who have airplanes parked, say, in 16 San Antonio or Austin, from a cost standpoint, so we could 17 see more planes and see more activity. But what, really, 18 would that be in terms of impact for the City and the 19 County? I think that's -- is that what you're saying? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 21 MR. WAMPLER: Just kind of a plan. Not to 22 say that I would ever be against doing all these things; 23 just that I don't know what the benefit is, really, other 24 than to say that we -- you know, we've got a better airport 25 than we had previously. 51 1 MR. PATTERSON: Right. Well, I think, too, 2 that part of that -- no argument about the plan. I think 3 the plan also has to include, if you're going to look at it 4 from that perspective, which I think you should, what's 5 going to happen in and around -- not only in, but around, 6 for instance, the proposed business park? What kind of 7 impact would the airport have on it? And what kind of 8 impact would the business park have on the airport? 9 Vice-versa. Even though they're not on airport-proper, 10 there's certainly some synergy there, being located -- you 11 know, located that close to it, being able to bring -- you 12 know, if you have a manufacturing facility, being able to 13 bring parts or supplies or whatever in and literally run it 14 across the road instead of trucking it in. Sometimes that 15 can be beneficial. But, again, that's something to be 16 looked at. 17 MR. WAMPLER: I've got a quick question. 18 Megan, on the overlay on the Runway 12/30, you said that we 19 thought we were going to get 7 inches, but because of 20 failures we only have 2. Is it that they laid 7, but the 21 base failed and now we only have 2? Why did we end up with 22 less overlay than we thought we were getting? 23 MS. CAFFALL: When they brought the equipment 24 in to the put the overlay on, the trucks broke down the 25 existing asphalt and water came up through the runway, so we 52 1 ended up having to take all that off, rework the base, dry 2 it, send it off to be tested. We did all kinds of testing 3 out there, doing underground radar, falling isometer tests. 4 We did all kind of testing, and ended up -- you know, all we 5 had to put back on it was the overlay. I really would just 6 like to make sure that I make myself clear. When the runway 7 was expanded 10, 11 years ago, that's what caused us to be 8 reclassified, so the bulk of this is not making the airport 9 bigger. We're dealing with what we have right now. And the 10 ramp expansion, that is making it bigger. And I think that 11 it also would be appropriate for the City and County to meet 12 with Aviation Division, as far as they do have us in the 13 plan, in a 5- to 10-year period, to extend the runway 14 another 1,000 feet. I mean, that's at the point where I 15 think we really need to have a discussion on, do we want to 16 do that? 17 MR. PATTERSON: She's hitting the nail on the 18 head. I mean, the bottom line is -- is that the decision 19 that we're living with today, in '02 and '03, that's here; 20 it was actually made a long time ago, probably before most 21 everybody here. And what happens is -- is that you see a 22 delayed impact when this happens. Now -- so, with that 23 said, I mean, these particular issues in '02 and '03, these 24 are things -- and, as she said, without the ramp, are things 25 we need to -- really need to do to take care of that 53 1 decision long ago. And she's, again, hitting the nail on 2 the head. This idea, though, of extending it again, all of 3 these things and this study you're talking about and all 4 that, better look at it real hard, because, again, you're 5 going to be another 5 or 10 years out from that decision and 6 doing the same thing. This stuff happens, and when that -- 7 even though that runway gets punched out, the way the F.A.A. 8 and TexDOT rules work, you're 5 and 10 years out before you 9 actually start seeing some of the impact on things that you 10 have to do, so you have to look at them very carefully. 11 Now, as she said, as well, the -- the ramp expansion, 12 that's -- that's a matter of, you know, do you want to try 13 and, you know, create some additional opportunities or not 14 out there? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Megan or Ron, can we get 16 an update where we are with the T-hangars? I know they're 17 there -- I mean, they're going in, you know, where that 18 revenue or projected revenue is going into this. As I 19 recall, it was supposed to help defer, you know, some of the 20 costs out there, or additional -- you know. 21 MS. CAFFALL: We're planning, Jonathan, on 22 85 percent occupancy and revenues for next year. We're 23 going to open bids on the paving next Monday. I'm planning 24 on having these up and going October -- by October 1, maybe 25 sooner if we can. 54 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The revenues projected in 2 the '02 -- in our '02 budget? 3 MS. CAFFALL: Yes, sir. 4 MR. PATTERSON: Yes. Let me tell you, in 5 terms of the '02 budget, the philosophy we took when we put 6 it together. We took 85 percent occupancy rate on the 7 hangars, okay, which is up from 60 percent on our original 8 projection, because we have a good list of potentials out 9 there. The other thing that we -- we did was we also 10 assumed that there's no Mooney revenue, okay? Because 11 there's a question mark there. If those happen and things 12 get squared away out there with that operation, as well 13 as -- let's say we hit 100 percent on October 1. Then these 14 numbers actually get better, okay? But, again, really and 15 truly, if you take out these projects, the airport is 16 running on its own. As far as operationally, it's making 17 money, okay? So, from that perspective, that 47,9 is being 18 offset substantially by the additional revenue, okay? 19 So, again, from that perspective, it's a 20 matter of, you know, if you just stop today, can you 21 continue to run and are you doing okay? Are you running in 22 the black? The answer is yes. Okay? What these numbers 23 are directly attributable to, I mean directly, is future 24 expansion. And, you know, issues -- not just expansion, but 25 also taking care of reclassifications that happened a while 55 1 back. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3 MR. PATTERSON: Okay? 4 MS. SULLIVAN: Could you answer me about 5 what -- on that first page of Tab 6, removal of an 6 entitlement grant for that year under the '02 -- the last 7 paragraph. 8 MS. CAFFALL: Well, this year there's grants 9 that come to us, like this one, that are -- that we're 10 programmed into. There's other money that I go out and 11 pursue getting. This year we're saving a good bit of money 12 by using the entitlement grant for the T-hangar paving, but 13 it -- there's a 3-year grant award. They give us $150,000, 14 and all this is subject to being -- the State funding this 15 for the next two years, where we get $150,000 for the next 16 two years. And, that costs us, in the airport budget, 17 $16,667 to match that grant, so these budgets are to the 18 bare bone. I took that out. And turning those grants down 19 won't -- won't hurt us. They'll just let us apply -- that 20 money will actually go towards -- it will get rolled into 21 the grants. We won't get penalized for not taking it, but 22 this year it saved us a good bit of money. So -- 23 MR. PATTERSON: Bottom line is, we're trying 24 to reduce our grant match obligations by removing that. 25 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 56 1 MS. CAFFALL: Take it out. One of the things 2 I was going to use it for, if we could afford it, was an 3 economic impact study, but there -- there's some other areas 4 where we get a little bit more generic, but AOP has some 5 things that we can get to that can give you a pretty general 6 economic impact statement of what the airport does for the 7 community. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As we look at this, I 9 think it's important -- it is a policy decision on what is 10 the airport -- what do we want the airport to be when it 11 grows up. And, as a part of that equation, the airport, 12 facility-wise and capability-wise, is probably just 13 approaching the point where, sometime in the future, 5 to 10 14 years maybe, maybe less, maybe never, we might actually see 15 commuter service established. Which has a far, far bigger 16 reaching impact on Kerr County and the City of Kerrville 17 than the absolute monetary value for somebody sticking up a 18 business across the highway and trucking their stuff or 19 whatever it may be. So, taking that longer-range view, I 20 think, is important at the same time. 21 Now, obviously, it's a policy decision. Do 22 we ever want to pursue that? I keep saying I think we do, 23 because who knows what this community's going to look like 24 10 years from now, what the population will be, what the 25 infrastructure will be, what the travel requirement and 57 1 travel demand would be? And I think if we keep a strategy 2 alive in that policy that says we can accommodate commuter 3 air service into the airport at some point, should we opt 4 for that, would be a good thing. Now, if we can't afford 5 it, we can't afford it, so we don't do it. But I wouldn't 6 lose sight of that. And, to me, it's probably the biggest 7 advantage of having a viable, all-up, total facility 8 airport. And we can't get there with what we have right 9 now. We could get there in 3 or 4 or 5, 6 years, 10 years; 10 I don't know. But, I hope we don't lose sight of that 11 possibility. 12 MR. PATTERSON: One additional comment to add 13 to that, too, is that in looking at the airports around us, 14 most of them are landlocked or have other issues that 15 probably won't allow them to even get to that opportunity. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's correct. 17 MR. PATTERSON: Whereas this one does have 18 that opportunity on the horizon. I believe that our Airport 19 Chairman would like to maybe make one statement. 20 MS. PRIEST: Yes. I just wanted to say that at 21 one time -- I don't know how it is now, but at one time, over 22 300 airplanes brought in hunters. And there's a lot -- I 23 understand also there are a lot of campers that come in by 24 airplane. An airport is extremely important to your cities. 25 Most of you know that Austin has taken over Bergstrom. Well, 58 1 now they're planning -- they need another airport downtown. 2 So, you can see that airports are very, very important to the 3 city, and we need to back this program definitely and 4 continue to improve that airport. 5 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Ron, I have a 7 question with regard to the grant for property acquisition 8 on the runway protection zone. And, the question 9 specifically is, to what extent will this apply to any 10 property that we might need to acquire for -- contiguous to 11 the high school, Catholic high school? 12 MR. PATTERSON: I believe that's totally 13 outside of the runway protection zone. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Outside of it? 15 MR. PATTERSON: As a matter of fact, I think 16 by -- I was going to say it's almost a mile. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 18 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. And even -- I 19 stand to be corrected, but I can go back and look at it. I 20 think I remember even looking at what that RPZ would be with 21 this discussed extension, and it's still even outside of 22 that. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 24 MR. PATTERSON: So, even if you did the 25 extension in the future and you did the new RPZ, you would 59 1 still be outside of that. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Good enough. Thank 3 you. 4 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ron, isn't that area -- I 6 think this is what you said right there. It's important, if 7 you know that runway -- the extension is a possibility, need 8 to make sure that that land is protected now. 9 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, it's a lot 11 cheaper to figure out a way to budget for it in the next 12 five years than it's going to be to wait for a building to 13 be built out there, wait and figure out what to do. If 14 there's a possibility of really expanding that, that's 15 something we may really want to do. 16 MR. PATTERSON: Part of that gets you down 17 to, as she was discussing, if we sit down with TexDOT 18 Aviation, if we want to come -- get a meeting together, 19 bring them in and do that, one of the things we'd have to 20 do, though, is begin the policy question of do we want to 21 make that happen? Is that something we want to happen? 22 Then go ahead and get in the funding cycle with them, and we 23 plan for it and they plan for it, so it -- when it -- we 24 know what's coming and we don't get caught. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What David was saying, 60 1 just get some sort of a packet of potential in the future 2 and have another scheduled meeting just to discuss the 3 airport by itself. 4 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: I believe what we need to do 6 is to go ahead with what's outlined here, including 7 expanding the ramp, and then take a significant pause and 8 perhaps come together and jointly fund the economic impact 9 study, to include the commuter service opportunity. And 10 hopefully, by that time, the decision will have been made on 11 the water and wastewater infrastructure, so we'll be in a 12 position to have the airport pretty much up to snuff and 13 then say, okay, where is the economic impact and what are 14 the opportunities for moving forward on different scenarios? 15 But, I personally think that we need to go ahead with this 16 '02 and '03 program, because it gets us to where we should 17 be, given the configuration of our community today. And 18 then we'll be in a position, I think, we can get some 19 professional assistance to look at whether we want to take 20 it to the next step, and whether that next step puts us at 21 vanguard or simply keeps us even with where we ought to be. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree, Judge. 23 MR. PATTERSON: There are some awesome firms 24 out there that can do these kind of studies for you. As a 25 matter of fact, we've talked about -- I've worked with one 61 1 personally for a while, and, I mean, it's -- there's several 2 very good ones who can really nail it down for you. 3 MS. CAFFALL: We did not budget for the 4 entitlement grant this year. We don't have to spend all the 5 money, but we can defer next year off to the year after, 6 just say we're going to spend it the year after, and always 7 reserve the choice of just taking money if we want to come 8 up with ten cents on the dollar. 9 MR. PATTERSON: How much of it was that 10 entitlement grant this year? 11 MS. CAFFALL: $150,000. 12 MR. PATTERSON: So -- and then our match -- 13 MS. CAFFALL: 150 in 2002. 14 MR. PATTERSON: So our match is 2002? 15 MS. CAFFALL: $166,667. 16 MR. PATTERSON: $16,000? That's total, so 17 then that would be split? 18 MS. CAFFALL: Right. 19 MR. PATTERSON: See, the -- the bottom line 20 is -- is you can take the $16,000, if you decided that you 21 wanted to go ahead and get that done ASAP, and split that. 22 That would put another $8,000 -- well, $8,500, basically, a 23 piece on the 47,9. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: By "getting that done," what 25 do you mean by -- 62 1 MR. PATTERSON: Getting the study done that 2 you made mention of. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 4 MR. PATTERSON: And, again, we can pursue 5 that or we can hold off to next year. Just understand that 6 basically it's $150,000. And we've got the $16,000 we'd 7 have to come up with to match, and we'd split that -- or 8 $17,000, really, and then you would split that. So, you're 9 talking, you know, again, $8,500 a piece approximately on 10 top of either -- either on top of this number or that number 11 to be able to go ahead and make that happen. So -- okay? 12 So, again, we can just -- we can wait and look at that next 13 year, or -- do you want us to look at it this year? 14 MR. WAMPLER: My opinion is we can wait. 15 We've got a lot to do right here. 16 MR. PATTERSON: Well, by the time '03 gets 17 here, as the Judge pointed out, we'll know -- 18 MR. WAMPLER: Right. 19 MR. PATTERSON: -- what's funded, what's not, 20 what's in place, and we can give that to a consultant. I 21 would recommend wait till '03. 22 MR. WAMPLER: Mr. Griffin's point was well 23 taken. I mean, what does the airport want to be once it 24 grows up? That's kind of -- you know, we -- I just -- you 25 know, economic impact is a concern, but I'd just like to 63 1 know what -- do we have a consensus with regard to 2 direction? Is it going to be solely a private use, 3 industrial-type facility, or are we going to try to 4 accommodate commuter traffic? What's really going to be the 5 focus? 6 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the right 7 question to ask. 8 MR. PATTERSON: We'll try and get some ideas 9 together again, try to put the Airport Board in, I think, as 10 well, get all the input at one time. Might be good, or at 11 least get representatives to come. Okay? Anything else on 12 the airport? All right. Community recycling. This is -- 13 this program is funded out of our Landfill Fund. The bottom 14 line is -- one thing you might have asked; you might have 15 said, "Well, how come these numbers for the total budget 16 are, like, $60,000 more than what you're showing on the 17 summary sheet?" And the reason is -- is there's -- there's 18 a fee we have to pay to T.N.R.C.C. that transfers out of 19 that fund that we have to pay them for basically taking care 20 of the recyclables and that kind of stuff, some fees that we 21 have that -- 22 MS. CAFFALL: The Airport Fund -- back on 23 your sheets, the Airport Fund balance doesn't show up 24 correctly. 25 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, the Airport Fund 64 1 balance is shown in your book -- it's, like, a little over 2 $200,000. The bottom line on that is -- is that fund 3 balance does not show three -- two or three -- three 4 projects. 5 MS. SEKULA: One. 6 MR. PATTERSON: The last project that's going 7 to occur, so that fund balance will actually be more like 8 closer to $11,000, 'cause there's a $200,000 project 9 outstanding. So, I just wanted to make sure you didn't walk 10 away thinking that $200,000 balance was coming forward. 11 It's more like 11. Okay. Thank you, Megan, for reminding 12 me of that. On the recycling center, on that, what we have 13 here is pretty straightforward, and I'm going just let Megan 14 discuss this very quickly. 15 MS. CAFFALL: The recycling center is a joint 16 effort between City and County. I guess, for those of y'all 17 that don't know, we lease the half a block from the County. 18 Their maintenance building was on that property, and six 19 years ago we leased it from them and opened the recycling 20 center there. We've done about $75,000 worth of 21 improvements to that building, building a drive-through and 22 the surrounding concrete, and then just this past couple of 23 months, completed a $40,000 addition to it, which doubled 24 the size of the building. We have an outstanding facility 25 there that we get recognition for across the state. It 65 1 provides an opportunity for the county residents to recycle. 2 As opposed to using the landfill at Boerne, they have a 3 place where they can recycle now. 4 We have two special events a year that we 5 budget for, two hazardous waste collections that are open to 6 all county members. In the last year, those collections 7 went up from 25,000 to 35,000. We got more participation, 8 we got more stuff, and we consider that it's money well 9 spent to pull those hazardous wastes out of the waste stream 10 and let people dispose of them properly. We also collected 11 almost 1,000 tires, and those were a tremendously expensive 12 item to get rid of. We also had one unbudgeted special 13 collection last year, our computer recycling event, and we 14 got statewide recognition for that. We pulled a lot of 15 computers out. I don't know if we're going to be able to do 16 that on an unfunded basis. I was waiting for the other shoe 17 to drop the whole time on that. You know, we sent two 18 30-yard containers to San Antonio. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 MS. CAFFALL: But in previous years, the 21 County has contributed $10,000 towards the operation of the 22 recycling center, and this year, mainly because of this cost 23 increase in our special collections, and also because 24 recycling materials revenues are down again, we're asking 25 for a matching contribution of $7,500. 66 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: So, you're proposing two 2 special events again? 3 MS. CAFFALL: Oh, yes, sir. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Which were -- 5 MS. CAFFALL: We have the recycle paint 6 collection in the fall, and a hazardous waste collection in 7 the spring. And it's not a well-known fact, but we take 8 hazardous materials at both collections. Paint is the 9 number one item that we get at both collections. 10 MAYOR FINE: Explain what hazardous wastes 11 you take. 12 MS. CAFFALL: We take pesticides, herbicides, 13 household cleaners, paint, paint-related solvents, cleaners, 14 just anything that -- that you can't put in your -- in your 15 trash or that would harm our landfill if it were put in the 16 landfill, liquid waste. Then we take tires, batteries, and 17 fluorescent light bulbs, things like that. 18 MR. PATTERSON: Questions? 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Could we get a cash flow or a 20 balance sheet on both the airport and the recycling center? 21 Say, on this -- cash flow or balance sheet on both recycling 22 center and the airport on a quarterly or a semiannual basis? 23 MS. CAFFALL: Sure. 24 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, that shouldn't be a 25 problem. The -- just the balance -- the balance sheet. 67 1 MS. CAFFALL: Revenues, as opposed to 2 expenses? 3 MR. PATTERSON: We'll give you a balance 4 sheet that shows both the cash in and out. Does that give 5 you enough data? 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think so. 7 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. 8 MS. CAFFALL: The only portion that's going 9 to look funny on the recycling side is the -- the operation 10 is heavily subsidized, and I don't know how we're going to 11 split out our surcharge revenue that we apply towards that. 12 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah. 'Cause basically, what 13 we do, our surcharge revenue we get off the landfill stuff 14 goes back into the fund on a percentage basis, so I don't 15 know. We'll figure out how to show it, but -- 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thanks. 17 MR. PATTERSON: -- it's interesting, because, 18 as I was explaining, when you look at these overall sheets, 19 you kind of go, "Well, that number doesn't match this 20 number." Well, you got to back out this fee and then you 21 got to put in this revenue, so it's kind of -- but that's 22 the way we're supposed to do it, and it is legal. I want to 23 be clear on that. Okay. Any other questions on the 24 recycling center? Thank y'all. 25 MAYOR FINE: Thank you. 68 1 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. Library services. On 2 this particular item, what -- this is under Tab 8. What I 3 have done here on the screen is just simply taken and break 4 down three basic areas that we'd like to touch on. There's 5 a lot of information in the packet with regard to service 6 levels, number of patrons served, technology, et cetera. 7 And, Antonio is here and will be able to answer most of 8 those questions, but also give you some additional 9 information which is not shown up here. But, the bottom 10 line is -- is that just to touch on a couple of things. 11 One is the proposal to add the -- what we're 12 calling the Outreach Program, and that program would be 13 to -- to circulate materials available at the library out to 14 county residents by adding a van and a staff person to be 15 able to take -- and take those materials out of the library 16 and drop them at those specific locations where they can 17 pick those up. Now, the idea being -- and, again, I'll let 18 him get into more detail, but they'll be able to either 19 online make reservations or telephone reservations without 20 having to even come to the library at all. Be able to do 21 that from home. The idea being that the overall program is 22 shown at a little over $60,000. The van, which is projected 23 at about 38, would be offset by contributions that we 24 currently have on-hand that we would like to use against 25 that, leaving a funding requirement of 22,5. 69 1 And, in addition to that, basic services -- 2 again, it's very straightforward. The bottom line is there 3 that our costs are going up with regard to personnel. Our 4 buying power on the books, et cetera, are all just increases 5 that we've got. One of the things that the City -- or the 6 County, in terms of our overall contributions into that have 7 been level for two fiscal years; that's one of the reasons 8 also that we would like to take a look at this and make this 9 recommendation for next year. Facilities in general, just 10 as an update, the Phase I on the History Center right now 11 should be completed this year. In addition to that, one of 12 the things that happened -- and, Antonio, was this last year 13 or the year before that that facility was done? 14 MR. MARTINEZ: June 1st of last year. 15 MR. PATTERSON: Okay, last year. What we 16 would like to propose is that we really need to take that 17 facility plan off the shelf and take a real hard look at it. 18 One of the issues that we need to take a look at -- and I've 19 had an opportunity -- I've read about 75 percent of the 20 study. I'm still reading the rest of it, but part of what 21 was in that study took a look at things like adding onto the 22 balcony area, stuff like that, to add square footage. Not 23 just enhance, you know, services inside of what's there 24 today, but add square footage to the facility so that 25 there's additional shelf space. And that's what we're 70 1 running into. What we would like to look at this next year 2 is take a real hard look at that, take a look at not only, 3 you know, what can be done, what's in those recommendations, 4 but then also take a look at funding sources for that. 5 With that said, I'm going to let Antonio 6 speak to some of these in a little bit more detail, and then 7 I'll kind of summarize it. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Ron, I don't mean to be 9 obstreperous here, but we have a 2 o'clock bid opening, 10 so -- 11 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- we're going to have to 13 push these last very quickly. 14 MR. MARTINEZ: I'll make mine very short. We 15 presented the Outreach Program to County Commissioners in 16 May. There's really nothing different from that 17 presentation, so I'm really not going to go into any detail 18 on that. I'll be glad to answer any questions. As Ron 19 said, the idea is to keep existing automated capability, 20 online reservation system, telephone call, and to bring 21 materials out to people who need them out in the county. 22 Any questions on that one? I'll skip ahead to other things. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Have you determined 24 where the point of delivery on -- 25 MR. MARTINEZ: No, sir. We would look to you 71 1 for advice on that. We would ask you to advise us as to 2 what are the best places to go. You know, as we said at the 3 May meeting, perhaps precinct offices, perhaps other 4 locations that you know are good, high-traffic, and easy to 5 get to locations. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Are you contemplating 7 5-day delivery service? 8 MR. MARTINEZ: No, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What are you 10 contemplating? 11 MR. MARTINEZ: One a week. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Once a week? 13 MR. MARTINEZ: Once a week. 14 MR. PATTERSON: Well, once a week, but there 15 may be five or six locations, so the idea would be is get as 16 many locations as possible, do it once a week, and if the 17 demand is there, actually add to that and do additional 18 drops per week. We'd like to do it as a pilot program. 19 MR. MARTINEZ: Definitely. The location we 20 would ask for your advice on. As far as particular 21 services, in the past two years, what's happening at the 22 library is that we're seeing our in-house usage going up 23 dramatically. And, that's one of our big problems. As Ron 24 mentioned, we'd like to see within the existing building 25 envelope to create more public areas. We don't have enough 72 1 room for all the people that are coming in. We're seeing 2 between 400 and 500 people a day coming into our doors, and 3 that's a pretty dramatic increase of usage of the building, 4 heavy traffic. We're very heavily used every day. As far 5 as facilities, we did present last Tuesday to Council the 6 economic improvement money. We do have that building plan 7 developing. The bid process is about to start. But, again, 8 as Ron said, we do have that study we concluded last year, 9 presented to Council, and it's very detailed as to all the 10 shortcomings on that building. One of the key questions to 11 ask is, how much money do we want to spend on that whole 12 building? And some people are asking me, When do you want a 13 plan to build a new library? Those are policy questions, 14 but in my opinion, we do need to invest some in maintaining 15 the current building. Questions I can answer? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Questions? Comments? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Quick question. Is -- 18 what do you call it, the History Project? History 19 portion -- 20 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that 100 percent City, 22 or is that joint City/County also? 23 MR. PATTERSON: No, sir. That, we've gotten 24 -- the City is actually operating it, and we've gotten 25 contributions that are actually paying for the enhancements 73 1 that are going on in all of that, and right now there are no 2 County funds on that particular project, sir. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to stay a 4 separate item than the airport? I mean -- not the 5 airport -- than the library? I hope it is from the airport. 6 MR. PATTERSON: I mean, it's open for 7 discussion. You know, at this point in time -- I mean, 8 currently, with this budget you see in front of you, yes, 9 sir, it's separate. 10 MAYOR FINE: Do you want to get involved? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think so. 12 MR. PATTERSON: And we actually have -- so 13 you know, we've -- for accounting purposes and budget 14 purposes, we actually have a separate fund established for 15 that, so the Library Fund and that History Center Fund are 16 completely separate. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 MR. PATTERSON: The moneys do not mingle at 19 this point in time. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, thanks. 21 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. 22 MS. SULLIVAN: Antonio, is there problems 23 with the enlargement because we have a circular library? 24 MR. MARTINEZ: That is a problem. 25 Definitely, right. It's hard to develop a round space out, 74 1 you know, past the envelope of the current building. 2 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 3 MR. PATTERSON: One thing I will say, though, 4 from reading the study -- 5 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes? 6 MR. PATTERSON: From what I can tell so 7 far -- you know, like I said, I've read 75 percent of it, 8 not 100, but I will say that so far, from what I see in that 9 study, is it possible? The answer is yes. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: But is it -- does it make any 11 sense? I mean, you do have a library that's either 300 or 12 400 percent over capacity today. Can you expand the 13 capacity of that building -- 14 MR. PATTERSON: That much. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- that much? 16 MR. PATTERSON: That's -- 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: And have any future, as well? 18 MR. PATTERSON: That's the question. I don't 19 know. I'm hoping in the end, when it gets to the summary, 20 it tells me some of that. So -- 21 MR. MARTINEZ: My feeling is that the 22 possible expansions addressed currently don't do much for 23 future. 24 MR. PATTERSON: We may have to look off-site. 25 But, again, I think we owe it to ourselves to pull that 75 1 thing back and take a good, hard look at it, though. 'Cause 2 I'm not sure we need to really digest this, 'cause there's a 3 lot of good recommendations in there. Some of it, though, 4 we just need to figure out, do those recommendations answer 5 the long-term question? And, we don't know right now. 6 MS. SULLIVAN: Is that the review that you're 7 reading? 8 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, ma'am. It's quite 9 lengthy. 10 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 11 MR. PATTERSON: And some of it -- I hate to 12 keep calling and go, "What do you mean by that?" Which I'm 13 getting there. Are there any other questions? Okay. The 14 next two, just very quickly, I kind of combined them, 'cause 15 they're -- they're not real substantial with regard to huge 16 programs. But, Animal Control; again, the City participates 17 in that through a contract, in the control function as well 18 as the shelter function, on a formula basis of 40 percent of 19 what the -- what the budget is. And, from -- from the 20 budget that was given to us, what we've been able to 21 determine is -- is that there's an overall budget of 140. 22 With our participation, it's $66,000 this next year, which 23 is an increase of about a little over $22,000, almost 24 $23,000 with the overall budget. That assumes that -- if 25 the County wants to increase that budget. So, again -- now, 76 1 if y'all choose not to raise the budget, based on the 2 request, you know, obviously, that will impact what the 3 participation level will be. So, again, pretty 4 straightforward. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Marc Allen is here in case 6 any members of the Council have any questions -- 7 MR. PATTERSON: Oh, excellent. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- regarding the operation or 9 -- or anything regarding Animal Control. So, if you think 10 of -- 11 MR. ALLEN: I can tell you, under Animal 12 Control functions, that -- 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Marc, stand up. 14 MR. ALLEN: -- that contract is really great, 15 because it gives the City better coverage, and it also gives 16 the County better coverage. I mean, that way we've got 17 three officers in the city all the time, and actually three 18 officers in the county, so that contract has just been 19 great. I mean, it -- overall, it's wonderful. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: As far the division of, you 21 know, the City's participation, the contract -- actually two 22 contracts; one for the facility, one for the operation. 23 They're very detailed as to what we charge you all for and 24 what we don't, what offsets you get. You know, there's a 25 specific provision in there for so many dollars for city of 77 1 Ingram's participation in animal control. There's a 2 specific provision in there for offset for the sewer 3 services that are provided by the cities. So, it's -- just 4 have to work the numbers. 5 MR. PATTERSON: Well, and the summary sheet 6 that was provided to us, that you gave us, shows all of 7 that, the total cost and the break-out. And that's 8 actually, I believe, included in your packet. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yes. 10 MR. PATTERSON: I think -- yes. 11 MS. SULLIVAN: Could I ask the Judge and Marc 12 a question? Do you accept animals from outside the county? 13 MR. ALLEN: We try not to. 14 MS. SULLIVAN: Oh. 'Cause that -- I heard 15 that you were having trouble with the capacity; it was 16 because you accepted animals -- 17 MR. ALLEN: We don't accept a whole lot of 18 them. Once or twice a month, somebody from -- 19 MS. SULLIVAN: Is that all? 20 MR. ALLEN: -- from another county will show 21 up. If we tell them no, we're not going to take it, well, 22 they're going to end up dumping it right down the road; 23 we're going to end up chasing it anyways. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: And there are ways to make it 25 an accounting animal. You realize that if you walk out the 78 1 door -- 2 MS. SULLIVAN: I understand that. I 3 understand. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 MR. PATTERSON: So the Council knows, our 6 budget today that's -- that's prepared and for submission to 7 y'all does include this increase, so it's already built into 8 this. Okay. Anything else on that? All right. Tax 9 collection. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, Paula Rector's here; 11 again, the City/County Tax Assessor/Collector, if anyone has 12 any questions about tax collection or the process. 13 MR. PATTERSON: It's pretty straightforward, 14 1 percent of projected taxes -- or actual taxes, actually. 15 So, it's -- it is what it is. It's pretty straightforward. 16 No? Okay. 17 MAYOR FINE: You do good. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: A compliment and a free 19 lunch. What more do you want? 20 (Discussion off the record.) 21 MR. PATTERSON: With regard to potential new 22 programs, I've just got a little summary here, and the Judge 23 and I talked the other day and there was a couple of other 24 issues. I don't know -- I think we've got time to go into 25 those with y'all. Or if y'all want to try and do something 79 1 separate on this? Or if you want me to just very quickly 2 gloss over them? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think we have 4 time. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Do a real quick gloss, if you 6 would, please, Ron. 7 MR. PATTERSON: Okay, sir. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Really, just the -- I think 9 the first two are the ones that really have -- 10 MR. PATTERSON: Those are the real -- 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- need to be touched on. 12 The third one is mandated by the Legislature. 13 MR. PATTERSON: That's right. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: So it's one that we have to 15 come together on. 16 MR. PATTERSON: Well, the bottom line is -- 17 is that there's been some discussion about the combination 18 of municipal county courts, being able to perhaps get in a 19 situation where we don't -- we don't have to have a 20 stand-alone municipal court; that that could be rolled into 21 a function done on a county-wide basis. And, again, there's 22 been some preliminary discussions that -- the Judge and I 23 have had some conversations, and one of the things that -- 24 that this would do is, obviously, potentially have some 25 economies of scale for both of us, primarily for the City, 80 1 quite frankly, in terms of being able to get out of that 2 business. So, again, that's something that's being looked 3 at. We've got to do some number-crunching and that type 4 thing. But, again, it's something being looked at for the 5 future. Is that short enough? 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anyone -- anyone have any 7 questions? 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I have some major, 9 major, major questions that this day there's not enough time 10 to go into. So -- 11 MR. PATTERSON: There are a lot of issues 12 like this one. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- I really would like 14 to revisit this. 15 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir, okay. Yeah, 'cause 16 there's a lot of jurisdictional questions. I mean, there's 17 a ton of things to go through on it. Okay. Garage 18 services. On that particular item, one of the things 19 that -- the County has bid their maintenance services on 20 their vehicles. One of the things that we're now looking at 21 is -- and the Judge has provided to us now a list of all the 22 vehicles, save and except the heavy equipment in the Road 23 and Bridge area. Okay. This would be cars, light trucks, 24 that kind of stuff, and our staff has taken a look at that 25 to say, okay, you know, could we bid on that and what would 81 1 that do? The idea being that, you know, we do a cost-plus 2 basis of some sort and be able to do something that would be 3 reasonable for the County, perhaps even cost savings, and 4 beneficial to the City. So, we're looking at it. We got 5 the numbers the other day, and we're looking at building a 6 cost model right now. One of the things we don't want to do 7 is -- is that, in our system, we have the ability to look 8 at -- if we take a vehicle, look at the make, model, and 9 mileage, we can project what that cost would be for 10 preventive maintenance, as well as routine. You know, just 11 routine maintenance of things you know are going to go out; 12 change -- oil changes, as well. That's preventive, but you 13 can also predict what you think that vehicle might cost you 14 in repairs. So, we're taking a look at that and trying to 15 build some cost model around that. That's so we can have 16 some conversations about it. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I really would be 18 interested in that. I like that a lot. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: I will -- the list I provided 20 you, though, Ron, is the Sheriff's Department and the 21 Maintenance Department, all right? I haven't discussed with 22 the Road and Bridge Department whether they would want their 23 -- their pickups to be included in it. 24 MR. PATTERSON: Okay. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: There's a few other odd 82 1 vehicles; the -- the Probation Department has a couple. 2 MR. PATTERSON: Right, a few here and there. 3 We've got the preponderance of what's there, so at least we 4 can get some sort of numbers out of that. Heavy equipment 5 would send us off the deep end. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Heavy equipment, I don't 7 think, is contemplated, at least certainly not at this time. 8 MR. PATTERSON: No, we haven't been looking 9 at that one. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What is road support? 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's maintenance. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The road maintenance? 13 MR. PATTERSON: There's been, you know, some 14 discussion about, you know, maintenance and -- maintenance 15 outside the city limits, maintenance inside the city limits, 16 funding those, what processes could be used to do that. You 17 know, again, as you know, we've got road issues all over the 18 county, and a lot of them are in the city. So, that was -- 19 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's another one, 20 probably needs a little time to look at and some time to 21 discuss what the possibilities are. We probably need to 22 address that in time. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 24 (Discussion off the record.) 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Couple other potential new 83 1 programs. Common dispatch with the Sheriff's Department and 2 the police and the fire we're interested in. And, also the 3 area of wastewater treatment. We're already actually 4 involved in that with the Kerrville South project with the 5 U.G.R.A. as the go-between. I think we all see that as a -- 6 hopefully a model for future participation. On motion by 7 then City Councilman Fine, the City Council has taken the 8 position they'd like to be the regional wastewater provider 9 for this area, and so we need to tap into that and talk 10 about ways that the County and other government agencies 11 like the U.G.R.A. can facilitate getting fewer septics and 12 more septic treatment. 13 MR. PATTERSON: Yes, sir. And, the -- the 14 Council is currently looking at some plans for upgrading 15 some of our systems right now, and we'll be presenting that 16 to them on the 8th, as well. So -- and we also have to do a 17 bigger-picture view of it for expanding those facilities, 18 not just upgrading. 19 (Discussion off the record.) 20 MR. PATTERSON: Really, just two issues to 21 address. One is, is this format -- is this helpful? Is 22 this -- I mean, are we giving you what you need? Are we 23 not? I want to make sure, when we get here again, that we 24 don't -- if we make mistakes, that we don't repeat them. Is 25 this -- 84 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Very helpful. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I like having a book 3 in advance, because that answers a lot of questions, if you 4 really read it. 5 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, it does. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excellent. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: As far as future meetings on 8 the potential problems, like the municipal court, my -- my 9 suggestion is that as -- as we get closer to a decision, 10 then we -- we have some of the fundamental issues fleshed 11 out, like jurisdiction. Can we do this? Then let's 12 schedule a specific meeting on a specific topic, and take 13 about an hour, work our way through it. 14 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Who buys the barbecue? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: City did a good job. 16 MS. SULLIVAN: It's your turn next. 17 MR. PATTERSON: Yeah, I do believe that 18 calling meetings for those specific issues is important, but 19 I also believe that, in terms of the big scope, what we're 20 doing here, as the -- as the mayor pointed out, I think at 21 least once a year we need to be doing this so that we can 22 get this data to you and we can talk about it, and -- and, 23 again, share this information on these projects. You know, 24 maybe it's something we do semiannually, so that that middle 25 meeting is something where we're doing planning instead of 85 1 looking at -- here's numbers that we want you to consider. 2 It's more like the questions about the airport and those 3 kinds of things. Well, where are we on that project? You 4 know, what are we looking at? Just a suggestion. But, if 5 you're interested in it, you know, we'd like to be able to 6 support that, you know, get those going. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: I personally would like to 8 see us do it that way. We could have a meeting in the 9 December/January timeframe and -- and without numbers, and 10 talk about visions and -- and, you know, where's the library 11 going? Where's the airport going? And do we have the basis 12 for road support? Do we have the basis for additional 13 wastewater treatment? And then, based on those discussions, 14 come together in the May/June timeframe with specific 15 numbers that implement the direction we arrived at in the 16 previous one. 17 MR. PATTERSON: Sounds good to me. 18 MS. SULLIVAN: Sounds good to me, too. 19 MR. PATTERSON: We will begin to schedule all 20 of that and look at it, prepare for it. Again, we thank 21 y'all very much for your time, both Council and 22 Commissioners. We really appreciate the opportunity to do 23 this, and look forward to another exciting year as we go 24 into the new budget. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Thank you, Ron. 86 1 Excellent presentation. 2 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, very helpful, all the way 3 around. 4 (Discussion off the record.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: We are adjourned. 6 (Meeting adjourned at 1:56 p.m.) 7 - - - - - - - - - - 8 9 10 11 STATE OF TEXAS | 12 COUNTY OF KERR | 13 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 14 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 15 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 16 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 17 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 3rd day of August, 18 2001. 19 20 21 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 22 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 23 Certified Shorthand Reporter 24 25