1 2 3 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 4 and 5 KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL 6 City/County Joint Meeting 7 Thursday, January 31, 2002 8 6:30 p.m. 9 District Courtroom Number 1 10 Kerr County Courthouse 11 700 Main Street 12 Kerrville, Texas 13 14 15 16 P R E S E N T 17 Kerr County Commissioners Court: 18 FREDERICK L. HENNEKE, Kerr County Judge 19 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 20 LARRY GRIFFIN, Commissioner Pct. 4 21 Kerrville City Council: 22 STEPHEN P. FINE, Mayor ANN G. SULLIVAN, Mayor Pro Tem 23 NANCY BANKS, Place 2 DAVID WAMPLER, Place 3 24 TONY ROBERTS, Place 4 DANE TUNE, Assistant City Manager 25 KEVIN LAUGHLIN, City Attorney 2 1 I N D E X January 31, 2002 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Consider and discuss future of Kerrville/Kerr County Municipal Airport, including T-hangars, 4 master plan, build out and noise study, future capital improvements and grants 5 5 1.2 Consider and discuss future of Butt-Holdsworth 6 Library, including recent improvements that are City/County and EIC-funded, re-examination of 7 study completed in 2000, and the county delivery system 19 8 1.3 Consider and discuss current operations and 9 potential expansion for Animal Control 31 10 1.4 Consider and discuss City of Kerrville having responsibility for approval of ETJ subdivision 11 plats and draft of interlocal agreement 43 12 1.5 Consider and discuss recent legislative changes concerning road maintenance and participation 13 in maintenance on annexations 62 14 1.6 Consider and discuss facility enhancements and partnerships for regional wastewater facilities, 15 including U.G.R.A. 78 16 1.7 Consider and discuss potential City/County joint operations for: 17 Garage Services 86 Municipal Court 94 18 Common Dispatch 102 19 1.8 Consider and discuss plans and potential partnerships/funding for the Hill Country 20 Youth Exhibition Center 112 21 --- Adjourned 131 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Thursday, January 31, 2002, at 6:30 p.m., a joint 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and the 3 Kerrville City Council was held in District Courtroom 4 Number 1, Kerr County Courthouse, Kerrville, Texas, and 5 the following proceedings were had in open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Before we begin our formal 8 meeting this evening, let's stand, have a word of prayer, 9 the pledge of allegiance, and then get started. If you'll 10 join me, please, for the invocation. 11 (Prayer and pledge of allegiance.) 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thank you all. On behalf of 13 the Commissioners Court, I want to welcome the City Council. 14 It's our turn to host these joint meetings, which I think we 15 should plan to institutionalize so we may cooperate for the 16 benefit of all the citizens that we serve. I want to thank 17 you all for coming. I want to extend a special thanks to 18 Mamacita's and Hagi and Dean for the gift of the food which 19 we enjoyed this evening, and our special thanks to them for 20 helping to make this a special occasion. Mayor, do you want 21 to say anything? 22 MAYOR FINE: Well, thank y'all for having us. 23 We agreed last summer to make this a biannual -- not 24 biannual, semiannual -- twice-a-year event. And I think 25 we've got a lot of exciting stuff here to talk about, and I 4 1 think with the last meeting being the first one, we were all 2 kind of new to it, and I think it's -- we know what we're 3 doing and the direction we're going, and I want to thank 4 you. And Ron had a lot to do with putting this together, 5 and the staff of the County and the City, and thanks for 6 having us. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, you're welcome. Just 8 for a quick review, when we met for the first time last 9 spring, we determined that we really need to have two of 10 these sessions a year, one in the winter to talk 11 strategically, to talk long-term, to talk policy terms, and 12 then one in the spring to talk in dollar terms, to actually 13 put dollars behind the strategy that we talked about and 14 that is ultimately determined for our joint operation. 15 So, the discussion this evening is designed to be more 16 free-flowing, less attached to dollars and more conceptual 17 as we move through the things that we're currently doing on 18 behalf of all the citizens here, and things that we could 19 be -- or propose to do. 20 MAYOR FINE: So, tonight we're going to 21 decide what we're going to do. In the spring, we'll decide 22 how we're going to pay for it. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Basically. 24 MS. SULLIVAN: Appropriations follow the 25 bill. 5 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: Any of any Commissioners want 2 to say anything? 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No. Let's get to it. 5 MAYOR FINE: Nope. 6 MR. WAMPLER: No. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we'll call the first 8 item, then, which is a discussion on the airport, including, 9 but not limited to, the T-hangars, revenues, master plan, 10 and related land use and development studies and future 11 capital improvements and grants. What I think we might do, 12 Mayor, is for the -- for the items that you -- you all 13 actually staff, we'll let you lead it, and for the ones that 14 we have the principal responsibility, we'll take it. Okay? 15 MAYOR FINE: Okay. One of the things Dane 16 especially has asked me tonight is not only do we go through 17 the list, but we prioritize on each one of these topics what 18 the Council and the Commissioners Court -- what is their 19 priority, so they know what to work on first. I think 20 that's going to be really important, as far as how staff 21 time is spent on each of these items. Some of them are 22 going to require a lot more staff time than others, just due 23 to the nature of it and where they are on some of the 24 projects. Like, with the T-hangars and the airport, a lot 25 of this stuff is already pretty much set right now. Megan's 6 1 done a good job of keeping it moving forward, where other 2 items that are a little more wide-open, we need to give them 3 direction. So, after we discuss it, we may want to sit down 4 and prioritize them, so keep that in mind as we're going 5 through each one of them. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. 7 MAYOR FINE: The first item is the airport, 8 T-hangar project. You guys have read this. I don't see 9 much need for me going through and reading it. Megan, is 10 there anything else you want to add to this? I don't want 11 to put you on the spot, but you showed up, so -- 12 MS. CAFFALL: Thank you. The only point that 13 both Ron and I wanted to emphasize is that the airport is a 14 real asset to our community, and under the master plan and 15 related land use and development studies, something to 16 really consider in the next year, after we get our master 17 plan finally finished and approved by the F.A.A., is to do a 18 land use and development plan related to the noise contours 19 that are generated in this master plan. And that's 20 something that would allow our airport zoning and advisory 21 board to kind of turn our hat around and act as a zoning 22 board and do some land use zoning around the airport so we 23 don't end up with incompatible development around the 24 airport, which ultimately, if the airport is noisy and 25 affects residential or other kind of development, then they 7 1 have a legitimate complaint. So, it's something that, 2 because we just completed the master plan and a good bit of 3 the work is done to commission an extra study in the next 4 year, or in the next budget year, to study and to give us a 5 document to turn over to the airport zoning board to create 6 guidelines to go ahead and do this zoning, which would, I 7 guess, also fall in amongst the ETJ and all that kind of 8 overview that we're going to have, would really help us 9 protect the airport. And that -- that, to me, out of all of 10 this, is probably the most important thing. 11 MR. LAUGHLIN: Just as a point of 12 information, for those who aren't aware, with respect to 13 airport zoning, an airport sponsor can actually enact a 14 zoning ordinance that -- particularly if it's in a city; you 15 can actually extend that zoning out beyond the boundaries of 16 the airport, whether it's in the city limits or not, so it's 17 one -- it's about the only exception to state law where 18 there is zoning outside of an incorporated city. And that 19 does deal with the airport, so that will be something that 20 can be done, if -- if it's saw fit to do so. 21 MAYOR FINE: One of the exciting things -- 22 some of the discussions we've been involved in, Judge, with 23 these groups coming in looking at Mooney, our airport's not 24 just a little airport any more. I mean, we're -- it's on 25 the verge of becoming more than just Kerrville's little flat 8 1 -- only piece of flat land in the county out there. I mean, 2 it's growing, and some of the things that are being done, we 3 can -- we can draw in more aircraft of a larger size in the 4 future with some of the projects that are going on. 'Cause 5 we're kind of at a point where we really need to make this a 6 focal point out there and put more money and effort into it 7 to keep it growing, going that direction. Obviously, we 8 probably never will be a San Antonio, but we probably don't 9 want to be a San Antonio, either. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 11 MAYOR FINE: But, by the same token, there's 12 some things we can do to attract more planes and industry in 13 that area out there. The business park out there is going 14 to be a big boost for that area also. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Couple thoughts. 16 Megan, I don't want to put you on the spot, but there is one 17 thing that's sort of an imperative if you're talking about 18 the airport -- the airport in general. You recall at the 19 last Airport Board, we did talk about animals on the 20 runways, and I've had -- since that meeting, I've had two or 21 three calls, again, about animals on the runways when 22 aircraft are coming in, and it is dangerous. And I think we 23 ought to put that on the front burner and see if we can 24 figure out a way to get the animals off the airport runways, 25 and find a way to either replace the animal -- I mean the 9 1 gap -- cattle gap so that we make it large enough so that 2 animals cannot get back into that area, because there's a 3 good possibility that there could be an accident. And I had 4 a call from a person the other day out in his plane; very, 5 very upset about it. 'Cause I think we ought to push it up 6 on the front burner and to figure out a way to get it done. 7 MS. CAFFALL: I'm meeting Kerr County Welding 8 out there tomorrow morning. 9 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Super. That's great. 10 MS. CAFFALL: I've been working with the 11 County and Road and Bridge, and there is, I think, a pretty 12 easy solution to getting at least a 12-foot wide guard 13 there. It won't take that long to put in, and I think I 14 have funds to pay for it. We'll figure out a way to pay for 15 it; it shouldn't be tremendously expensive, and go ahead and 16 get that back in there. I've been out at the airport quite 17 a bit more than I normally am. Primarily, I push paper, but 18 I've been out there a good bit, and Tuesday there were 19 antelope out there that were just going from one end of the 20 airport to the other; they couldn't get out. And it 21 appeared to me it could be very likely that they're coming 22 in the road, and if there's any way we can stop it there, we 23 need to do it. We've also been working the fence and 24 repairing the fence. Those antelope can get through an 25 incredibly small fence -- 10 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true, there 2 probably are some fence gaps that need to be taken a look 3 at. But the -- but the cattle guard will be very 4 beneficial. 5 MS. CAFFALL: But that's the primary -- we're 6 working on it. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Appreciate that. And 8 one other comment, Judge; it has to do with what Kevin said 9 with respect to zoning. There is a colony of folks that 10 live back there behind the airport. 11 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And they're certainly 13 going to be interested in that. 14 MR. LAUGHLIN: Oh, we're aware of that. 15 MS. SULLIVAN: Kevin, I wanted to ask you, 16 what power do they have, as a zoning board, just for noise? 17 MR. LAUGHLIN: No, it's -- I mean, you can 18 actually do land uses, just like the City does for inside 19 the city limits. And the -- the concept is to zone areas 20 around your airport that are compatible to the noise that 21 would be generated from the airport, which means for a 22 certain distance out, you largely want more -- you know, 23 heavier, more intense uses, more commercial-type kind of -- 24 like airport commerce park type uses, you know, within the 25 immediate boundaries and to some distance out. And then you 11 1 can -- then you can go with less intense uses the further 2 out you get from the boundaries. And there's -- there's 3 some F.A.A. guidelines that they publish that you can put 4 with the tables that you can get, that the master plan 5 should -- or can put together, or we would develop based on 6 the noise contours, to kind of lay out what those kind of 7 acceptable uses would be within the various contours. 8 MS. CAFFALL: And some of it also indicates 9 -- if you build, say, residential in this area, you can 10 build it there, but you have to provide in your building 11 requirements that there be some protection that breaks the 12 noise level down to an acceptable level. Some -- it doesn't 13 -- especially at our airport, in that area that's just 14 behind the airport, Shady Grove and the houses that are on 15 the hills, fortunately, that whole area falls in a noise 16 level area that's not prohibited. 17 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 18 MS. CAFFALL: But things that are growing 19 towards the end of the runways, it gets very specific about 20 what you can build, where and how you have to build it. 21 So -- the studies I've seen. 22 MR. LAUGHLIN: When -- just so you know, when 23 we were doing the annexation zoning for the new Catholic 24 high school site, one of the things we looked at were some 25 of the preliminary numbers on the master plan study, just to 12 1 kind of see where those noise contours fell with respect to 2 the proposed site plan for the school buildings, and made a 3 judgment that based on the -- that they were far enough out 4 and far enough away from the end of the runway that they 5 were actually beyond some of the noise contours that would 6 require limiting the use to something more intense. So, 7 that's why we -- so, you know, in some respects, we've done 8 -- have been starting to do some of that, just with some of 9 the areas we've been annexing out there. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan? 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Megan, can you summarize 12 where the master plan takes the airport? I guess what the 13 vision is as to where the airport's going to be? Is it 14 going to kind of stay like it is, just keep on improving it, 15 or is it -- to get it to another level where you can get 16 more jet aircraft, more heavy aircraft? Where does the -- 17 you know, a summary of that direction. 18 MS. CAFFALL: Well, the master plan covers -- 19 we're actually into it a ways, so say the next ten years -- 20 and it's not attracting bigger aircraft, but increased 21 operations. The ultimate master plan is to include an 22 extension to replace what we lost due to development down at 23 the Mooney end of the main runway, but it's not really 24 indicating bigger, heavier aircraft. We're already getting 25 about what we can accommodate with all our safety criteria 13 1 distances. It's just more activity and more use of the 2 airport, which will -- the noise contours move out and away, 3 just because you're going to have increased frequency of the 4 larger aircraft. Now -- and the F.A.A. has models that you 5 have to use when you -- when you have airport size, and 6 increased operations will spread those contours out. So, 7 there's probably -- as far as development of the airport, 8 the only major project left that we would be looking at in 9 the next ten years, besides the -- the runway extension, 10 which is a major project; I mean, that's something that we 11 all need to sit down and think about, but just to 12 accommodate what we have now and the traffic we have now, is 13 relocating the taxiways to increase our safety distance 14 there between the taxiway and the runway. But, basically, 15 we have a facility that's adequate the way it is, and is 16 just ripe for development just the way it is now. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, it's more just 18 developing the -- the business side of the airport, as 19 opposed to making it larger? 20 MS. CAFFALL: I brought this with me, and I 21 think it's something that it probably wouldn't hurt to look 22 at. Because inside -- when you talk about the development 23 of the airport, on the inside of that brochure, which I put 24 together to kind of promote the T-hangars, and also it shows 25 the -- this secondary development area behind our -- this 14 1 blue area here is the ramp that we have now with the 2 buildings in turquoise, are what's actually there. All the 3 rest of this is what's proposed for development, which will 4 be done by other people with -- with their money. It's not 5 City and County development. I'm working with an investor 6 right now for this area down here shown on the new proposed 7 ramp, this little purple building down here. That may well 8 come to be in the next couple of years. But that's somebody 9 else doing that; that's not us paying for it. So, when -- 10 and this is a lot of what the master plan addresses, is that 11 we need this, and this is how -- when someone comes and 12 wants to build something at the airport, this is what is on 13 file with the F.A.A. And they ask the question when we do 14 develop it, is it consistent with the airport master plan? 15 And this is where we get our guidance as to where to go with 16 development. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Judge, Megan and I 18 discuss this often, and I've mentioned it at most of the 19 meetings we've had over the last three years regarding the 20 airport, but I think it's important enough to repeat it 21 again, and that is, as we plan for the airport, I think one 22 of the things we ought to keep in mind is to make sure that 23 we don't do anything that would preclude having commuter 24 service at some point. Because there are some things that 25 we could do that might preclude that, just in general 15 1 operations or in where we put roads or whatever, because 2 there would have to be a secure area if that kind of thing 3 were done. And I think if the -- to the degree that we can, 4 if we can plan on having a commuter service here someday, I 5 think we will. 6 MR. JOHNSTON: With the development along 7 Highway 27, does that -- that can't be expanded for larger 8 and larger aircraft? 9 MS. CAFFALL: We just need to be careful how 10 it develops along that area. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doesn't TexDOT show 12 some potential movement of 27 towards the river a little bit 13 on that master plan? 14 MS. CAFFALL: It's shown on there, and it's 15 in the process of being reviewed by the F.A.A. They will 16 make determinations. And, unfortunately, September 11th has 17 really slowed things down. I mean, we just -- it's been 18 with the -- in Fort Worth for almost four months now, so -- 19 MR. WAMPLER: Megan, I was wondering, to 20 further answer Commissioner Letz' question, can you go over 21 the T-hangars and rationale for applying for the grants and 22 getting those in, and how this fits in with the airport 23 master plan? 24 MS. CAFFALL: Well, the T-hangars were to 25 fulfill a need for more hangar space for smaller aircraft, 16 1 and in another area, in the main ramp area, it's designated 2 for larger aircraft. The master plan shows four T-hangar 3 buildings, and then some additional smaller hangars and a 4 road going up toward where Steve Gray's hangar is. I think 5 that -- I guess you know the City and County paid for the 6 buildings themselves, and then I got grants to do the paving 7 and the infrastructure that went with it. Does that answer 8 your question? 9 MR. WAMPLER: Yeah. I guess -- I guess what 10 Jonathan was asking is, what is the plan, long-term? And, 11 as I see it, what we've discussed is that, you know, the 12 T-hangars fit in that -- in that it potentially draws 13 aircraft from other areas that may see benefits to storing 14 aircraft or operating out of Kerrville versus Austin or San 15 Antonio or what-have-you. And so that I think this lends 16 itself to increasing the activity at the airport, provides 17 more of an economic boost with that activity that we hadn't 18 seen in the past. 19 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, the other thing it does 20 is that it provides another vehicle to make -- to generate 21 revenue at the airport, to get us closer to the day when we 22 all hope -- and I think -- I'm assuming we all hope that the 23 airport can -- can be self-supporting. One of the F.A.A. 24 guidelines with respect to airports is that, besides 25 creating airport funds, is to make the strive towards those 17 1 airport funds to be self-supporting, not dependent on 2 general fund revenues. And, having T-hangars and having 3 based aircraft there buying fuel, and thus paying a fuel 4 flowage fee that goes into the airport fund, those kind of 5 things meld together and help enhance the operation of the 6 airport, and start -- hopefully, the plan is to decrease the 7 dependency on the -- the County and City's general funds in 8 supporting the airport. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the current 10 deficit? 11 MS. CAFFALL: Because we're in the grant 12 situation now, you know, we are -- our deficit is basically 13 the grant match. And my goal in the next five years is not 14 to only make the airport pay for itself, but start building 15 that fund balance, so when we come up on one of these deals 16 where we have -- next year's a substantial grant match, 17 which the airport itself isn't generating enough money to 18 pay for, but if we have years in between these larger grant 19 matches, you know, to build the -- the fund balance up so 20 that we can contribute towards those out of the airport 21 money, which right now the fund balance in the airport fund 22 is minimal, because we have to contribute to it. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the grant match 24 estimated for -- during the next 5-year period? I know it 25 goes up and down from year to year, depends on the projects, 18 1 but what's our -- just the grant amount that we're looking 2 at? 3 MS. CAFFALL: Well, we aren't programmed for 4 anything beyond this -- this year right now. I would 5 imagine it's going to be at least three to four years after 6 next year's grant match, and it's projected to be, I think, 7 $123,000 each, because it's about two and a half million 8 dollars worth of improvement. We won't be scheduled for 9 another capital improvement grant of that size for at least 10 three years, I wouldn't think. I mean, historically, that's 11 the way it's been. And the other -- the other -- the 12 entitlement funds that I got last year go through this year 13 and next year, but they're ten cents on the dollar, about a 14 $16,000 grant match, which is something I'm hoping to see 15 the airport able to pay those things. Like right now, 16 within our budget, we can pay our $20,000 or $30,000 a year 17 for the grant match for the ramp projects, and we can use 18 the entitlement money, if we get it, and if we find a grant 19 match to do things that we would normally have to pay for 20 anyway, you know, to improve pavement or do maintenance and 21 things like that. So, my goal is to have the airport up 22 paying for itself and building in the years that we don't 23 have the big grant matches. 24 MAYOR FINE: There's a good goal. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: An excellent goal. 19 1 MAYOR FINE: Any further questions for Megan 2 or Kevin? Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Stephen, I think the only 4 question is, sometime -- I'd probably appreciate if we could 5 get -- I don't know if the full court would be interested in 6 a more detailed review of the master plan. If it is, we may 7 put it on our agenda, see if Megan can come over in a 8 workshop setting for the whole court, or I can just meet, 9 myself, and -- one-on-one. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think I'd like to do that, 11 too, is have a -- a special session on the master plan at 12 some point, just to come up to speed on it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Maybe some of the members 14 of the Airport Board can come -- 15 MS. CAFFALL: Yeah. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- talk about it, 'cause 17 they're the ones that did a lot of work on it. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Next item is 19 Butt-Holdsworth Library, including recent improvements, 20 re-examination of the 2000 study, and the county delivery 21 system. 22 MAYOR FINE: Antonio, I guess you're going 23 to -- you showed up too, so -- 24 MR. MARTINEZ: Yes, sir. 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: You're on. 20 1 MAYOR FINE: Why don't you -- 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Aren't we lucky these people 3 showed up? 4 MAYOR FINE: Would you bring us up to date on 5 the -- 6 MR. MARTINEZ: Sure. 7 MAYOR FINE: -- Library, City/County Library, 8 the delivery system and some of the other projects going on 9 down there? 10 MR. MARTINEZ: Well, let's start with the 11 renovation project. If you've driven by the library, you've 12 seen all the activity, and as stated here, there's three 13 major items being addressed at this point. And we were 14 waiting on bids on two other large items. As it happens, we 15 do have some updated information as of a day ago; we 16 received cost proposals on the roof and the lighting, and it 17 looks like we can accomplish that with the existing funding, 18 and so we're moving ahead with that. It's being reviewed by 19 staff, and we intend to move speedily on it, so that's where 20 we are on renovation items. As you'll recall, to segue into 21 the study comments, we had to address A.D.A. compliance and 22 all the other regulatory issues before we could do anything 23 else. We had a long list of projects proposed by the study, 24 so the staff proposal is to review that study once more, now 25 that we're underway with the compliance issues, and come 21 1 back and try to pick some of those projects that are doable 2 and fundable, to actually provide some service benefits and 3 some space benefits. That was really our intention all 4 along, but A.D.A. compliance sidetracked us quite a bit. 5 As far as the delivery system, I did meet 6 with the Commissioners Monday, and we do intend to discuss 7 location of delivery sites, and all the other items are 8 underway. Job description's being written. We do have the 9 vehicle on order, and expect delivery within a week, week 10 and a half, and we'll be fitting out the vehicle, getting it 11 ready for the service, and preparing the media announcements 12 and trying to promote the service. I'll be glad to answer 13 any other questions that you all have. 14 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, Antonio. Are we going to 15 do the things that are -- were stated in the plan 16 project-by-project as we find funding for them? Is that 17 what you're saying? 18 MR. MARTINEZ: I haven't had a chance to 19 discuss the approach with Ron, you know, since he left; we 20 didn't get to review that, so I'm not real sure how that 21 will go. I know one of our top desires is to enclose that 22 balcony space. 23 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 24 MR. MARTINEZ: You know, that's really all 25 along the top. We desire to create new public space, which 22 1 is what we need the most. We're very crowded, and, you 2 know, we're seeing 400, 500 people a day coming through that 3 library, and we need space to put them, so that's really the 4 most desirable thing. But we're going to look at everything 5 very carefully and see if there's anything that needs to be 6 addressed before it gets to a critical point. If there's 7 anything that needs to be repaired, you know, we also need 8 to do that, and not do crisis management. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Even if the balcony space 10 isn't enclosed, isn't the building still severely over 11 capacity, as far as the use? 12 MR. MARTINEZ: In terms of seating, yes. We 13 probably have sufficient capacity for materials, for books, 14 et cetera. But seating areas, computer usage areas, study 15 areas, that type of thing, take up a lot of space, so we are 16 underconfigured for the usage. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: What are the long-term plans 18 for the recently acquired strip shopping center there where 19 Center Travel and -- 20 MR. MARTINEZ: We still have leases running 21 there. Kevin, about two and a half years? 22 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, no. Through the end of 23 this October. 24 MR. MARTINEZ: Okay. You know, my 25 understanding is -- and, you know, I'll defer to Kevin to 23 1 give you more on that, but my understanding is that we will 2 be looking at creating parking there eventually, when we've 3 run through all these leases. That's another critical need, 4 parking. You know, we just don't have enough spaces for the 5 number of people that come in. 6 MR. LAUGHLIN: That's an issue that City 7 Council need to be addressing. The funds that were gifted 8 to the City to acquire that property limited it to library 9 use, and so the property will ultimately have to be used for 10 the library purposes. The timing on whatever ultimately 11 happens with the -- with the buildings, whether it be, you 12 know, with demolition of either all or part of it, however 13 the Council ultimately decides to do it, would -- you know, 14 still has to be decided. You know, 'cause one of the things 15 that we're going to have to look at is, you know, we're 16 trying to generate some revenues from the remaining leases. 17 Our -- we've got three tenants -- paying tenants right now. 18 One is leaving at the end -- she may have already closed up 19 shop, I'm not sure. She was leaving today or -- or within 20 the month, anyway. It's either -- and then Center Travel's 21 still in its lease, and then Mr. Elmore still -- he's on a 22 month-to-month. And -- but he -- he'll be leaving at his 23 desire, but at the end of October at the latest. So, we're 24 trying to generate revenues from those rents to -- to bank 25 away, but I don't think it's going to quite get us there to 24 1 actually paying for the demolition of the building. I mean, 2 there's still some funds that are going to have to be put 3 together for -- to do that, and that's something the 4 Council -- Dane and the Council and Antonio will need to be 5 kind of get together from a budget standpoint as to where we 6 generate those funds. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, that property was 8 given to the City only? 9 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How -- 11 MR. LAUGHLIN: We acquired it. We bought it. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Oh, you bought it. How 13 are we going to, long-term, have a -- you know, a facility 14 that's going to have -- I mean, how are you going to 15 segregate expenditures? I mean, if we start using it for -- 16 like, if you clear it out, use it for parking -- 17 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- who's going to -- are 19 you going to say, okay, you know, the County paid for 20 repairing the pothole here, but the City's going to pay for 21 this pothole? 22 MR. LAUGHLIN: Keep in mind, the existing 23 building, the City holds the title to it too, so it 24 wouldn't -- operationally, it wouldn't be -- shouldn't be -- 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it would be the same? 25 1 MR. LAUGHLIN: -- shouldn't be any different. 2 MR. TUNE: We do -- by the way, the history 3 center's -- and Fred's question about kind of where is all 4 this going space-wise, the idea has been a complex on the 5 river with the library, with adequate parking, and with the 6 history center. And the history center, Phase I, is 7 through. And that also was gifted, between grants and 8 H.E.B. and some others, so you've got that over there, and 9 we're working on funding for that. Now, currently, where I 10 think you're going, Jonathan, y'all have not had to fund 11 anything in the history center, nor in the strip here. And, 12 you know, up the road, I don't know, but there's -- we're 13 not going there. That's not the purpose of this one. But 14 we do have to find ways to fund the history center, and 15 that's what we're working on. We want to try to have a two- 16 to three-year, even up to a five-year plan to put -- you 17 know, you don't want to open it up and then you can't 18 sustain it. That's the problem with some of these gifts we 19 get; we don't get money for operations. So, to make a long 20 story short, remember also we do have the basement of the 21 library, and that's a large area under there. There's some 22 A.D.A. problems. There's some problems with that structure, 23 just the way it's built, but it's a beautiful structure. 24 And, anyway, that's kind of the thinking right now, that it 25 stays there for a certain period of time, but it becomes a 26 1 complex. And, you know, how do we fund it? Y'all are -- 2 City/County obviously fund the library, proper. And the 3 rest of it's another issue. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: The history library was a 5 wonderful gift, but isn't it limited in its use? In other 6 words, you can't put the children's section in that 7 structure; is that correct? 8 MR. TUNE: There's a lot of things we could 9 do with it, but right now we're looking at genealogy -- just 10 what you're saying. There's some things like genealogy, for 11 instance, and then all the -- optionally, all the history 12 stuff. I don't think that -- Antonio might want to speak to 13 that. I don't think there's any plans to put library pieces 14 over there. It's strictly history and things that lend to 15 that type of operation. 16 MR. MARTINEZ: If I could comment on that, 17 moving any other service really creates a problem due to 18 staffing level. If we start dividing up staff and sending 19 them to satellite locations, then we don't have staff to 20 help the 500 people a day that come into the main building, 21 so that's not really a desirable objective for me at this 22 point, with the limited staffing we have. So, yes, you're 23 right, it would be limited to history and genealogy 24 operations for the foreseeable future. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems to me that we 27 1 probably -- I mean, I hate to put more meetings in the 2 future, but it would be helpful, I think, for the City and 3 the County to look long-range at the library. You know, 4 'cause I don't know all the intricacies about the gifts and 5 what the restrictions are on this building versus that 6 building, but it seems like we're getting -- going down a 7 path -- it's a very confusing situation when we're having -- 8 I mean, and a situation where you could have conflict as to 9 how you fund when there's one facility that's being funded 10 by different components. I think we need to be real, real 11 careful, when we start going down that path, that we're, you 12 know, in agreement as to where we want to go. Maybe -- I 13 have no idea if the County wants to participate in some of 14 these things, or if the City wants to participate, but I 15 think it would be real healthy for us to, you know, get real 16 blunt and say, "We want to do this and we don't want to do 17 this," or, you know, whatever on both sides, so we don't end 18 up with a situation that we're, you know, bickering amongst 19 ourselves about where the money's going. 20 MAYOR FINE: Well, things like the parking, I 21 mean, there's not many options. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 23 MAYOR FINE: I mean, that's kind of a -- not 24 much to argue about there. If the parking lot's done right, 25 hopefully we won't be worrying about potholes for a long 28 1 time. Now, as the history center develops, you're going to 2 see more and more activities down there, too. It's also 3 going to be infringing on whatever parking we put down 4 there. And -- and I don't know if you remember when the Red 5 Cross was in that building; they would have meetings that 6 would spill over into the parking that was already there. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But even on the -- and I 8 don't know what the interlocal agreement -- how it works, 9 but I would think you would have to look at the County funds 10 going to be used on that new property, that we have to make 11 sure that it -- our interlocal agreement would allow County 12 funds to be used for something that we're having no part of 13 in the ownership. And maybe it's covered right now under 14 our current agreement, but it just seems that we really need 15 to look carefully at that. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: If memory serves me 17 correctly, there was a master plan-type meeting put together 18 by the former director of the library, just about time you 19 got here or just before you got here, Antonio. Do you 20 recall? And -- and that -- and it was a brainstorming 21 session about things. But I think -- and it didn't go too 22 far beyond having one meeting or so. I think it might not 23 be a bad idea, following up on what you're saying, Jon, that 24 we do have a master planning session that involves members 25 of Council, members of the Court, and staff, and see where 29 1 we go with this thing, because library services to this city 2 and county are extremely important, and I think we all need 3 to be on the same page as we provide those services, and how 4 we fund them. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: My household is a very large 6 consumer of the library services, but I don't -- I think 7 it's unrealistic -- unrealistic for us to expect that the 8 current facility can handle the library -- the book demand 9 for very long in the future. I just think it's unrealistic. 10 I think if we devote 100 percent of the current building to 11 shelves and stacks, it's still not going to be very long 12 before we're out of capacity. So, as we look at this issue, 13 I think we really have to look realistically at, do we 14 devote large dollars to converting that facility into the 15 maximum repository of books that it can be? Or do we take 16 some of those dollars and look at another structure in a 17 complex area, or in some other solution to the capacity 18 problem? 'Cause as the county grows -- and we have a very 19 active young retired community here, which is what I like to 20 call us. They read, they use the Internet, they use 21 computer services, and they're down there researching their 22 purchases of their RV's and their cars and things like that. 23 And -- and I want to be careful that we don't devote dollars 24 into making the current facility the maximum it will be, 25 because that won't sustain us for very long into the future. 30 1 MR. MARTINEZ: To tie in with that, the usage 2 we have here in Kerrville of that facility matches or 3 surpasses cities twice the size, so you're very right about 4 that. The usage is just very high. 5 MS. SULLIVAN: That master plan, wasn't it 6 written in '91, Antonio? 7 MR. MARTINEZ: The consultant study was the 8 one done in '91. You know, we had the building study that 9 was done a couple of years ago by Artisan Group. 10 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. And did Artisan say how 11 much capacity we would gain by enclosing the balconies? 12 MR. MARTINEZ: I don't recall the square 13 footage on that, but it's a substantial amount. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: All of which is to 15 say, a master plan meeting might not be a bad idea. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else on the library? 17 MAYOR FINE: I think, like you said, they 18 just -- Antonio needs to sit down with the Library Board, or 19 -- and kind of look to see how far this library can take us. 20 I mean, whether it's 10 years, 20 years. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: It seems to me like, when I 22 looked at the 1991 study -- and Antonio shared at a meeting 23 shortly after I came on the court that the library is 24 currently approximately 300 percent over its maximum 25 capacity, something like that. I -- 31 1 MR. MARTINEZ: We were already over capacity 2 in '91. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: It's over its maximum 4 projected greatest ever capacity. And that's why, you know, 5 I think we need to be careful about putting money into 6 bringing a building up which will never catch up to the 7 usage. 8 MAYOR FINE: Maybe that satellite project 9 will come on and -- 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's going to be a 11 great deal. People out in the county are looking forward to 12 it. Moving along, the next topic is the Animal Control. 13 Marc Allen's here. Marc has provided us with some 14 statistics on the capacity, in the past few years, of 15 animals. I see the total animals has gone up about 16 40 percent over a three-year period, looks like. Marc? 17 What's going on out at the Animal Control? 18 MR. ALLEN: Last year was a record year for 19 the animals that came through the shelter. I don't know the 20 exact number between dogs and cats. I know last year we had 21 a real problems with the cats, where we didn't have enough 22 room for them, but we've solved that problem this year. 23 We've bought some new cat cages, and that's alleviated that 24 problem. But we average probably 20 to 24 dogs a day at the 25 Animal Shelter. We currently only have 16 dog runs that we 32 1 can use. I have quarantine runs, if I don't have 2 quarantined animals in there, which I can use for overflow, 3 but if I have quarantined animals in there, I don't. I have 4 to double up, and the runs that we have, the majority of 5 them are 3-foot by 5-foot. Well, you put two medium-size 6 dogs in there, they're way overcrowded. Now, I've got three 7 large dog runs. We have outdoor runs, but the problem with 8 those, we don't have sewer. So if we move the dogs during 9 the day out there to the outside runs, which the dogs would 10 rather be outside than inside, we don't have sewer. So, I 11 mean, we definitely got a problem. I'm having to euthanize 12 a lot more, sometimes three and four times a week. It just 13 depends. This is not a peak time, but from March to 14 October, that's our peak time of the year, and that's 15 usually what we average, about 24 dogs. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. What 17 immediate improvement, or what -- in order of priority, what 18 improvement would alleviate the problem you're talking about 19 fastest? Not the ultimate answer, perhaps, but, you know, 20 what -- what do you need the most right now? 21 MR. ALLEN: Dog runs. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Dog runs? 23 MR. ALLEN: If we had probably 7 to 14 24 good-size dog runs, where I could double up and the dogs 25 would still be comfortable, and I keep the male dogs with 33 1 the male dogs and the female dogs with the female dogs, 2 which makes a difference. But, you know, I -- if I'm going 3 to double up, I'm going to have to have a pretty good-size 4 dog run. 5 MAYOR FINE: Do you have the land for it? 6 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I believe the City gave us 7 the land that -- 8 MAYOR FINE: I mean enough, like, to add that 9 many more? 10 MR. ALLEN: The way the shelter was built, it 11 was built so we could add on. 12 MAYOR FINE: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Marc, what about on the 14 sewer side of the -- there's the tank with the grinder pump 15 and all that. Is that at capacity now? In other words, if 16 we built another dog -- or more dog runs, would we have to 17 expand that as well? Or -- 18 MR. ALLEN: No, we should never have a 19 problem with that. That's got that pump in there with that 20 grinder and everything, and we're right next door to the 21 sewer facility, and it takes care of that really quick. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: What impact do you think that 23 the new Humane Society facility will have, if any? 24 MR. ALLEN: I don't know. They've promised 25 me that they'll always have two dog runs open for me. We 34 1 give them all they can handle. And Freeman-Fritts, also. 2 Any adoption agency, we'll give them all the dogs they can 3 handle. I think three years ago, the Utopia Rescue Ranch 4 opened up, and they said they were going to take every 5 animal that we euthanize, and we filled them up in about two 6 or three trips, and they haven't been back. 7 MS. SULLIVAN: Oh, dear, oh, dear. 8 MR. ALLEN: You know, and last year the 9 S.P.C.A. in Fredericksburg was really doing a good job, but 10 all the girls up there got sick; they had to shut down for a 11 while, so I think they're trying to start back up. But I 12 don't know that it's going to make that big of an impact. 13 They don't take nothing but quality dogs from us, and it's 14 normally the purebred, small breed type dogs, and mostly 15 what I get are mixed-breed dogs. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you seeing an increase in 17 bites or attack incidents? 18 MR. ALLEN: Not in attacks. The bites have 19 been up, but I think it's because we're getting the word out 20 that they need to be reported. We haven't had any severe 21 bites to speak of lately. I mean, we probably average one 22 or two a year that we really take pictures of and send it in 23 to the State. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: We had a -- the county had a 25 problem with rabies last year. I mean, how did y'all handle 35 1 that? Have you seen any incidents of that this year? 2 MR. ALLEN: No, we haven't had a confirmed 3 case in 14 months. We did have, I believe, four cases 4 inside the city limits, but those were all bats, which we do 5 have bats. You know, parking garage has a colony. Usually 6 when you have a -- and that was where some of the rabies was 7 from. It's kind of a weird number, but 10 percent of that 8 colony would probably have rabies, but once the animal 9 contracts the rabies, they're going to die. So -- and they 10 migrate in the wintertime and come back. But the other 11 rabies was mostly -- we didn't have anything in domestic 12 animals, and you don't really have any control over that. 13 That's just -- rabies is on a cycle; it goes up and down 14 every two or three years. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: What would be the cost to add 16 the additional dog runs that you say you could really use? 17 MR. ALLEN: Oh, I wasn't even -- with the 18 cost of construction nowadays, I couldn't even give you a 19 price. I'd have to research that. I know I would like to 20 do it a little bit different than what we did with the 21 original building, but I'd have to do some research on that. 22 I couldn't give you an exact number. 23 MS. SULLIVAN: How many did you want to add? 24 Seven, did you say? 25 MR. ALLEN: Seven to 14, something in that 36 1 area. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, it seems we -- I 3 don't know if -- four years ago, I guess, we thought about 4 adding on, and it was about $20,000 to add -- it wasn't a 5 whole lot of runs. 6 MR. ALLEN: Well, if you built indoor/outdoor 7 runs -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This was kind of outdoor, 9 but they were sheltered. It was cinder blocks and 10 heavy-duty -- something in the $20,000 range for -- I think 11 it was -- I want to say 14 runs, something like that, maybe 12 a little more than that. 13 MR. LAUGHLIN: That's just outdoor runs. 14 MR. ALLEN: Well, they would be 15 indoor/outdoor, where they would have the option -- they 16 could go in and out. If the weather's bad, you drop a 17 guillotine door inside there. You have some heating. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge, on something like 19 that, since it is City/County owned, why couldn't we also 20 consider using inmate labor to help cut down those costs? 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we could. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: For those type of 23 facilities? 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: We could. I mean, that's 25 certainly an option. We've had good success with that at 37 1 the courthouse, the finish-out on the annex basement. But 2 that's always a possibility, a good possibility, 3 particularly in nice weather. So, that would cut down the 4 cost significantly if we get us a foreman and the materials. 5 Almost all of the finish-out that's been done in the 6 basement here has been done by trustees or community service 7 workers, and it has saved us a bundle. I think Keith 8 Longnecker reported to us on Monday that the Juvenile 9 Probation Offices, which were four offices, a reception 10 area, and a conference room, came in at $11,000 under budget 11 because of the use of -- so we're talking about $11,000 on a 12 $40,000 budget, so it came in about 30 percent under budget 13 because we were able to use trustees and community service 14 workers. That was paying a foreman in that figure, too, so 15 we can accomplish some savings with that program. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Marc, do you have 17 current designs of the runs that you'd like to build? 18 MR. ALLEN: I've got some ideas. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. Maybe you 20 ought to get them on paper. 21 MR. ALLEN: I could probably bring you some 22 pictures. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I bet you could. 24 MR. WAMPLER: What do you attribute the 25 growth -- 38 1 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The statistics here 2 show that we don't have as many dogs in the county, but ours 3 are meaner. 4 (Laughter.) 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: David? 6 MR. WAMPLER: I was just wondering what you 7 attribute the growth -- is it just growth in population? 8 MR. ALLEN: It's got to be. 9 MR. WAMPLER: I mean, I guess my question is, 10 do we ever get in front of the -- the demand? Are there 11 other things that we can do to try to discourage the need to 12 have, you know, an over -- 13 MR. ALLEN: Spay or neuter your pet. 14 MR. WAMPLER: I mean, because we're saying 15 that we're going to need to double the size of what we have 16 now. Are we going to be talking in five years about 17 doubling again because we've got more people coming into the 18 county, or is there another way to try to limit the need in 19 the first place? 20 MR. ALLEN: Spay or neuter. 21 MS. SULLIVAN: Spay or neuter. 22 MR. ALLEN: We push it. The Humane Society 23 gives away free spay and neuters, but there's a lot of 24 people who just refuse to do it. I think California went to 25 a deal where they had -- you have to have a $500-a-year 39 1 breeding permit. If you get caught breeding your dog 2 without that permit, it's a fine. So, I think that's the 3 only way -- 4 MR. WAMPLER: So that the animals that were 5 taken in today, those 24, 25 animals, are those actually 6 animals that have been captured? Do you have to go out and 7 capture -- 8 MR. ALLEN: A lot of them are surrendered to 9 us. 10 MR. WAMPLER: Or they've been surrendered, 11 dropped off. What do you think the ratio is? 12 MR. ALLEN: I don't know exactly what it is. 13 I mean, if you go by what -- what this says, last year we 14 had 1,483 animals surrendered to us or brought in. That's 15 stray cats and dogs. And the whole total number of all the 16 animals was 3,500, so it's a little less than half. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Stephen, are you all -- what 18 are y'all hearing from your constituents as far as the 19 service? Are they as satisfied as they'll ever be? 20 MAYOR FINE: I haven't heard anything one way 21 or the other, to be honest with you, personally. Have you 22 guys gotten any -- 23 MR. LAUGHLIN: Which generally reflects 24 satisfaction. 25 MAYOR FINE: Do what? 40 1 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah. And we're -- you know, 2 we're not hearing anything in our office either, from -- you 3 know, which occasionally our office will hear, because, of 4 course, we -- at least the in-city stuff, we prosecute, you 5 know, dog-at-large tickets or animal-at-large tickets with 6 Marc and his folks, you know, testifying on them. So -- and 7 we don't -- we're not hearing anything either. 8 MS. SULLIVAN: I've heard comments that they 9 could use more facilities, as Marc is saying. 10 MR. ALLEN: As far as officers, I think we 11 have actually three officers, and that's right where the 12 national standard would be for a county of 40,000 people. 13 That's where we need to be. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The fact that you're 15 not hearing anything is really good. 16 MR. ALLEN: Oh, yes. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: When we hear it, it's 18 usually bad. 19 MS. SULLIVAN: People call to complain, not 20 to compliment. 21 MR. ALLEN: I try to make no problems. Or 22 let's say solve the problems before they get to you. So -- 23 MAYOR FINE: So there's no program right now 24 sponsored by the City or County in any way, as far as 25 spaying and neutering? It's all done by -- 41 1 MR. ALLEN: No. 2 MAYOR FINE: -- Humane Society or -- 3 MR. ALLEN: We have spay days, I mean, little 4 things that go on, but it's usually -- that's usually done 5 by the Humane Society. They promote it, and we just push 6 it, you know. Our rabies drive starts Saturday; that's one 7 thing I'm pushing, because that's my main concern, is 8 rabies. 9 MAYOR FINE: Y'all get a big turnout for 10 that? 11 MR. ALLEN: I'm hoping to have a good 12 turnout. 13 MAYOR FINE: Have you done it in the past? 14 MR. ALLEN: Yeah. 15 MS. SULLIVAN: Once a year? 16 MR. ALLEN: Once a year is what we do. 17 MAYOR FINE: Is it just like a discounted 18 rabies shot? 19 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, and the registration is 20 reduced at that time. And that's another thing we push, 21 too. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Most of the area vets 23 participate, you know, in the rabies vaccination. 24 MR. ALLEN: Actually, all of the ones in the 25 county do. 42 1 MAYOR FINE: Yeah, we got a cat at the Humane 2 Society; they gave us a little coupon to get her neutered. 3 We took her in and -- 4 MR. ALLEN: We all work real well together. 5 MR. DICKERSON: I'd like to make a comment. 6 The Police Department gets a lot of calls from citizens on 7 animal problems, if they don't call directly out to Marc, 8 and we usually get them in touch with Marc, and he's handled 9 everything just great. We don't have -- my office doesn't 10 hardly get any complaints any more. And my officers that 11 call for Animal Control to help them on animal calls, Animal 12 Control shows up just as quick as possible, and so we're 13 real satisfied with it. 14 MAYOR FINE: Your guys helped me a couple 15 weekends ago with a wild animal. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I have the same thing 17 with the county. Marc is fabulous with the county, for 18 helping us. 19 MAYOR FINE: Yeah, your office was closed 20 that day. 21 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: In fact, he not only 22 helps us with the cats and dogs; now we have a bigger 23 problem with estrays and all the estray laws and getting 24 those animals to auctions and that, and housing them and 25 getting the cowboys out there to actually rope the cows off 43 1 the highway, and Marc handles every bit of that for us. 2 MR. ALLEN: I have a problem saying no. 3 (Laughter.) 4 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: It's just -- it's a very 5 big benefit to both law enforcement agencies, I'm sure, to 6 have the Animal Control that we have here, so anything we 7 can do to help him, we'd like to do. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on 9 Animal Control? 10 MAYOR FINE: I don't think so. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. The next topic is 12 consider and discuss responsibility for approval of ETJ 13 subdivision plats, and there was an interlocal agreement 14 presented. 15 MAYOR FINE: I think we'll let Kevin handle 16 that. 17 MR. LAUGHLIN: I think both the Council and 18 the Commission are aware that the Legislature, this past 19 session, approved legislation, signed into law, that by 20 April 1st of this year, cities and counties are supposed to 21 get together and put together an agreement to decide who's 22 going to handle plats within a city's extraterritorial 23 jurisdiction. There's a couple different options. One is 24 the County can do it. One is the City can do it. And, in 25 any case, the -- the ultimate process has to go through a 44 1 single office and be handled with -- with more or less a 2 one-stop shop, to kind of basically eliminate what the 3 process is now, and that's, you know, basically two separate 4 application processes, two separate sets of rules, which, in 5 the ETJ, typically in most instances ends up deferring to 6 the cities, because the law says you got to defer to the one 7 that's most stringent, and ours tends to be in most of the 8 areas. Not all the areas, but in most of them. 9 And, so -- so what we've -- we've prepared a 10 draft. I actually drew this -- pulled this draft from a 11 couple of other cities and counties that have already 12 entered such agreements. This one, in particular, I got 13 from my counterpart at the city of Waco, and in their 14 agreement with McLennan County. And in this option, this -- 15 this particular option would -- with the draft, would 16 actually have all the work being done by the City staff; 17 application would be made to the City. The one exception 18 that's written into this draft is submission of the plat 19 drawings, plat application, to the County Engineer for 20 review, as we would with -- and the concept being to do that 21 in the same manner as we do all -- all of our own stuff, you 22 know, when we circulate plat applications, and so the County 23 Engineer's comments will be included in -- in the 24 application process. But, aside from that, you know, at 25 least -- at least this particular option would be to have it 45 1 all be handled through the City staff and the Planning 2 Department. Now, I just threw that out there as an option. 3 I'm -- I don't know if that's a -- a recommendation, 'cause 4 we really haven't decided that yet. And, so -- but 5 that's -- that's kind of, in a nutshell, what we need to be 6 doing and where we need be to be heading before April 1st. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jonathan, you want to run 8 with it first? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I -- personally, 10 I probably think the City is probably the best -- I would 11 agree, the City's -- let them be the lead on it. But I 12 think what we need is to get -- figure out a good -- a 13 process and really look at the subdivision rules of the 14 County and the City, you know, because I don't know -- I 15 mean, we have changed; ours are pretty strict now, certainly 16 more strict than the hill country, and probably the state in 17 a lot of areas. But, they're different. And my biggest 18 concern comes in two areas. One, I think that somewhere in 19 the process, the Commissioner whose precinct it is needs to 20 sign off on it, beyond it's going to the County Engineer, 21 because it affects a lot more than just that subdivision 22 down the road. And, you know, I don't think we need to 23 bring it to the court necessarily, but I think, just on the 24 approval sheet that goes through the city system, there 25 needs to be a spot for the Commissioner to sign off, at a 46 1 minimum. When it comes to roads, you get into a situation 2 where, unless the City's going to annex the property, which 3 generally is not the case, the County's going to be 4 maintaining the roads. So, on the road standards, I think 5 we need to be very careful that there's standards that meet 6 with what we're currently doing in the county so we don't 7 have to start buying, you know, different materials for 8 roads in the ETJ than we are the rest of the county. That's 9 -- those are the types of areas. I guess the other area 10 that's real important is water availability. I don't know 11 if the County has water availability requirements like the 12 -- if the City has water availability requirements. The 13 County does, and they're pretty strict. And, we're going 14 through Headwaters as our primary -- 15 MR. LAUGHLIN: Just on that last one, we have 16 discussed that at a staff level, and we will be -- of 17 course, as you know, we're going through our comprehensive 18 plan rewrite. We'll be -- we're just now beginning 19 negotiations on discussion for Phase II of that process, 20 before we even finish the Phase I, with respect to the 21 development of our new land use ordinances, which would be 22 both our zoning and our subdivision. One of the things we 23 have discussed at staff level, and I think I can -- I'm 24 going to make an assumption that Council will be more than 25 happy to go along with it, is to incorporate that water 47 1 availability standard into our ordinance as well, as another 2 added component to our overall water conservation drought 3 management plan. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I've -- to follow up 5 on the point Jonathan's making on roads, has there been any 6 attempt yet to reconcile the standards between the City and 7 County to see how far apart we may be, or how close we are? 8 MR. LAUGHLIN: I probably have to leave that 9 to Paul and Franklin to see if they've talked about it. 10 MR. DOLAN: I'm Tim Dolan. Franklin and I 11 have talked about it to a very small extent. But, while I 12 sat here waiting for this agenda item, I went ahead and 13 compared some similarities and differences between both the 14 City's subdivision regulations and the County regulations. 15 What was interesting, when you discussed the idea about a 16 cattle guard at the airport, the animals, there's no 17 provision in the City subdivision regulations about cattle 18 guards, while you have that information. So, that's 19 something that obviously could be changed for that. But 20 some of the other similarities we do have would be those 21 things that focus on the right-of-way width for collector 22 roads or local residential streets that are in both City and 23 County subdivisions. The one area that you -- the City 24 needs to catch up on is the idea dealing with the conveyance 25 plat or development plan plat. The County regulations go 48 1 ahead and contain that, and that's still something that we 2 do see that we were planning to go ahead with the 3 comprehensive plan rewrite. 4 On some of the administrative procedures, 5 looking at extensions for a plat, a preliminary plat may be 6 drawn, and due to whatever time constraints or economic 7 constraints, the construction might not take place within 8 one year. The City regulations don't allow the provision 9 for an extension -- or the request for an extension. The 10 County regulations do. Again, another thing that we would 11 be able to change, and look forward to be able to do that. 12 Some of the similarities, as far as requirements, focus on 13 the concept plan, the preliminary plat, and the final plat 14 process, and so we're very close with working together. On 15 the idea about road standards, there's a rural residential 16 development road standards section in the City subdivision 17 regulations that almost reflects or almost mirrors County 18 regulations, and the difference may be where a base 19 compaction depth may be a difference of 2 inches, and it 20 could certainly be brought back to -- to conform, I believe. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think it's 22 preferable to have -- I mean, I think it's a good law. And, 23 I mean, from a developer's standpoint, one of the biggest 24 complaints I hear, and I'm sure people in the Council hear 25 as well, is that, why do they have to go through two whole 49 1 sets of rules for the subdivision? 2 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if we can 4 simplify that for the developers, I think it's a good thing 5 to do. I'm in favor of doing it. We just need to make sure 6 that we come up with a set of rules that work, both in the 7 city or for the City's purposes, and the ETJ and the county. 8 And, as I understand the law, it's a strange law from the 9 standpoint, it's kind of like it's a carrot out there. You 10 have until April 1 to do it, but if you don't do it -- but 11 it's really, the law -- intent of the law is more to 12 encourage it to happen, and hopefully -- the Legislature is 13 hoping it will, and if it doesn't, they may come with a 14 hammer later and make you do it. 15 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. And, of course, that 16 same comment has kind of circulated amongst the City 17 Attorney group. And, of course, the -- what they -- what 18 we've also said, and there've been a couple articles written 19 that says yeah, there may not be any penalty, but, you know, 20 some developer may decide they're going to come out there 21 and enjoin one or the other from making you go through an 22 application process, because this law is out there and 23 you've got to have it. Frankly, I'd just as soon not wait 24 that long and find out -- 25 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 50 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just have one 2 comment, Judge, about it. I think everything that's been 3 said is great, and I like Jonathan's idea that -- that the 4 Commissioner of that particular precinct, wherever the 5 development in the ETJ might take place, would have an 6 opportunity to sign off on it. And, at some point in time, 7 I would think if we go into this in-depth, and Franklin 8 certainly would be reporting back to the Court all those 9 things that transpired within whatever period of time. My 10 only comment I would like to see perhaps strengthened a 11 little bit has to do with County Engineer review. 12 MR. LAUGHLIN: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: While this provides 14 for the County Engineer to get a copy of all proposed 15 subdivision plats and so forth for review and comment, 16 that's all well and good at the outset, but I'd like to see 17 the County Engineer have an opportunity to review it the 18 last time, after everything has taken place, to make certain 19 that everything is in place and satisfies all the regs and 20 so forth. So, I'd like to see a beginning and an ending 21 review. 22 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, that's -- let me -- you 23 know, we need to talk about how that would work. We can 24 work through how that would work. I mean, ultimately, what 25 we're talking about is the Planning and Zoning Commission, 51 1 based on the recommendation of staff, making that decision 2 on approval of a subdivision plat. I mean, that's what 3 happens now with subdivision plats. And -- 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think, though, 5 Kevin, what Bill's saying is that before it went to that 6 last final approval cycle for the Planning and Zoning, that 7 the County Engineer would have -- 8 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think that's it. 10 MR. LAUGHLIN: And that's -- when we're 11 talking the review process, that's what would happen in any 12 case, because if it's not -- if, for some reason, it's not 13 compliant in the regs, it doesn't go forward with a positive 14 recommendation, so -- 15 MR. JOHNSTON: I assume the City inspection 16 department's going to do the inspections on the 17 construction? 18 MR. DOLAN: That's a good question, coming 19 back to me. Reviewing the plat, though, let's just put in 20 -- the Planning/Zoning Commission meets the first and third 21 Thursdays. Typically, the first and third Mondays of a 22 month, projects are submitted, and so within nine calendar 23 days, we provide our first review of a plat, circulation, 24 concept plan, and final plat, as the case may be. And what 25 we'll do within that first day is send it out to the 52 1 different agencies, e-mail them as well, and state that you 2 now have nine days to respond, and then I will gather those 3 comments back and literally try to give one sheet of 4 comments to that applicant or his developer. They then have 5 one week to turn it back in, to make whatever corrections 6 there are. We then get those revised or corrected plats and 7 plans and send them out to the very same agencies with a 8 correction notice. And so, again, no plat will go to the 9 Commission before its time. And, essentially, we're -- 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know exactly how this 11 law would work, though, but we have a 60-day window within 12 which we have to act on a plat. 13 MR. LAUGHLIN: We have a 30-day window, but 14 that assumes that the plat conforms to the regulations and 15 is what we would consider a, quote, complete application, 16 and so our trigger is actually shorter. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't know how those two 18 are going to match, because you all have a lot more ability 19 to fine-tune, you know, what you want your applicant to 20 submit than we do. Ours is written with a pretty broad 21 brush. 22 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, as I understand it, 23 though -- as I understand the law, if we decide the City's 24 rules apply, then all the City's rules apply. Now, I can 25 certainly doublecheck and make -- confirm that that's, in 53 1 fact, the way it's supposed to work, but that's my 2 understanding. If we decide, between the entities, that the 3 City's subdivision ordinance applies, that would -- that 4 pulls with it all the state law that governs that. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you then change your 6 Subdivision Rules, does the Commissioners Court have an 7 opportunity to say grace over it? 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Well, I think what 9 Kevin said earlier was that -- is that you thought, and Tim 10 too, that between the two sets of rules, that those could be 11 reconciled so that this would be the same. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, but say they're 13 reconciled, we agree on them. We go down the road, and the 14 City changes -- 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, future changes? 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- the Subdivision Rules. 17 Does the Commissioners Court then have an opportunity? 18 Because I think the way the law is written, we don't. 19 MR. LAUGHLIN: And I think that's correct. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: The other option, which I 21 think is a procedurally palatable one, is the fourth option, 22 where we set up a single office through interlocal agreement 23 where all plats are submitted, and we agree collectively on 24 the standards that are going to apply in the ETJ. And 25 that's effectively a melding, just like Tim's talking about, 54 1 just like Franklin's talking about. It doesn't give either 2 jurisdiction exclusive control, but it provides the one-stop 3 shop that we're talking about. I think that may be 4 something that we want to look at, as far as how to 5 accommodate the desire of the Legislature to solve the 6 problem in Dallas County and Travis County and the small, 7 rural counties. 8 MR. LAUGHLIN: I'm just not sure we can get 9 there before April 1 on that. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm not sure we can this way, 11 either. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I don't -- 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: We're looking at about four 14 meetings. 15 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah, I understand. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thirty days, you know, we 17 have to have a public hearing. 18 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. We do too. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: Thirty days notice of the 20 public hearing, so you're -- all of a sudden, you're already 21 into the early part of March. 22 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. Well, see, we're under 23 -- you know, we also get into issues about, under the taking 24 statute, dealing with differentials in regulations between 25 the ETJ and the City. I mean, there's -- we can't have 55 1 different regulations between the two under the taking 2 statute set out in the Government Code. And, so -- so what 3 you're proposing would actually, in fact -- and, again, I'm 4 going off the top of my head without doing the research, but 5 may have the impact of actually having us redo our entire 6 subdivision rules. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, because you set out a 8 specific set of common -- of jointly agreed-upon rules just 9 for the ETJ. That's what the law says, in Section D. 10 MR. JOHNSTON: You have the rural subdivision 11 ordinance now that's separate from the city. 12 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yes, but it can be utilized in 13 the city. It was written in such a manner that it applied 14 to the size of the tracts, not to whether it was inside or 15 outside the city limits. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the law contemplated 17 doing this. Maybe it's in conflict with another law, which 18 is very possible, but I mean -- 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: What happens if the City 20 gives the County the ability to -- to regulate plats in the 21 subdivisions in the ETJ? Then you've clearly got a 22 distinction between the City's rule inside the city and what 23 goes on in the ETJ. 24 MR. LAUGHLIN: That's -- I think that's a 25 question worth doing some research on. 56 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think that -- I 2 mean, to me, the reason I brought up the April 1 deadline is 3 not a -- a penalty for not doing it by that time. I think 4 it's really -- the intent of the law is to get cities and 5 counties to do this. Granted, it's driven by a couple of 6 cities, probably two. But, anyway, it's -- we all have to 7 live with it now, and I think that we just need to -- you 8 know, if we're both -- I think Commissioners Court and City 9 Council are committed to doing it. We just need to start 10 going in that direction, and if it's June 1st, well, so be 11 it, June 1st before we can get it done. I don't see any 12 reason to rush through it and have something that's not 13 going to work. We need to -- and it's going to take a 14 little bit of time, I think, for Tim and Paul to get with 15 Leonard and Franklin and go through to make sure exactly 16 what the rules are going to be. 17 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah. See, here's -- and as I 18 said, we're fixing to embark on an entire rewrite of our 19 subdivision ordinance, and so I -- frankly, I'm not sure I'd 20 want to have our staff doing the work twice. 21 MAYOR FINE: Yeah, it doesn't make much sense 22 right now anyway, because, like I said, everything's fixing 23 to be rewritten for the most part. So I think your 24 suggestion is probably best. Let's just agree that we agree 25 we're going to do it. 57 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: As fast as we can. 3 MAYOR FINE: As fast as we possibly can. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: And that's it. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And we can even do 6 resolutions from both saying that we're going to do it, 7 'cause I think it's a -- the hammer, if there is one, is the 8 next legislative session. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: They've said that. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They've said it. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Resolution of intent? 12 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We've got until -- 13 MAYOR FINE: Nonbinding. 14 MR. JOHNSTON: Kevin has an interest in, you 15 know, making sure the roads are actually built to whatever 16 standard -- you know, whatever we come up with, because 17 we're in a position now where the City's approving the 18 subdivision, but the County's going to take over maintenance 19 on a lot of these roads. So, we want to make sure we follow 20 through, have testing done on the -- you know, have a record 21 of what's actually put in, inspected, and that's important 22 to us. 23 MR. LAUGHLIN: Of course, the other -- the 24 flip side of that is, while the County may actually end up 25 initially with the plat and have the maintenance, the City, 58 1 upon annexation, may get it back, so we have an interest in 2 making sure they -- well, that's -- 3 MAYOR FINE: Well, it depends. 4 MR. LAUGHLIN: I mean, that's -- 5 MR. ODOM: We're stuck with it. 6 MAYOR FINE: It depends. 7 MR. JOHNSTON: We're looking at 1 mile -- or 8 you're right at the border of 2 miles, so you might want to 9 plan for a 2-mile. 10 MR. ODOM: Two-mile ETJ, because we got 11 discrepancies. 12 MR. JOHNSTON: There's a few. 13 MR. ODOM: Runoff. Runoff coefficient is 14 totally different than the City's. We've got The Woods down 15 there. You've got the new park going in, 25-year frequency 16 versus five years -- or two years and 25's. And your 17 population is almost at the point where it's going to -- 18 within the next couple of years, it's going to go to 2 19 miles. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Two-mile ETJ. 21 MR. ODOM: And I think if we do that, then 22 we've got time to -- 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Go all the way to Center 24 Point. 25 (Discussion off the record.) 59 1 MR. JOHNSTON: I think part of our drainage 2 requirements may even be more stringent than the City's. We 3 need to take a look at that. 4 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, and that may be 5 something that you guys need to get -- you know, the 6 engineers need to get together and -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Storm water runoff. 8 MR. LAUGHLIN: -- and do some comparisons, 9 'cause it may be, with your latest revisions, y'all may be 10 tougher than we are right now, which would be contrary to 11 what people used to believe. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One other thing, just to 13 bring that up, that we need to address somewhere in this -- 14 and it comes up on -- Commissioner Williams had a plat we 15 looked at Monday where there was literally a sliver of it in 16 the ETJ. I understand the City said, "Hey, County, you take 17 care of it," but what's the criteria going to be? I mean, 18 if it -- any bit of it comes under this new set of 19 guidelines? Or is it the -- you know, the majority of the 20 subdivision? I mean, or only the portion that's in -- I 21 mean, if you're in a -- nine times out of ten, part of it's 22 in the county and part of it's in the ETJ. 23 MAYOR FINE: We had it once before where we 24 had to do a variance on it. That was out there off of Spur 25 100, out there behind the V.A. 60 1 MR. JOHNSTON: Actually built two kinds of 2 roads, one in the ETJ and one in the rest. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Twin Springs off 4 of -- 5 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah, Twin Springs. 6 MAYOR FINE: I thought we ended up giving a 7 variance on that. 8 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well -- 9 MAYOR FINE: That's the only one I can 10 remember since I've been on. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, you also had 12 Horizon going back a few years. 13 MAYOR FINE: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one we did this week 15 was Paso Creek, but a very small part of the floodplain -- 16 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right, and -- well, there 17 really wasn't anything that -- any new development that was 18 occurring in that sliver, 'cause the road, I think, existed. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 MR. LAUGHLIN: There weren't any new 21 dedications, and so that was one of the reasons we said 22 there really wasn't anything for us to concern ourselves 23 with. 24 MAYOR FINE: Well, I think it's obvious, from 25 all the points that have been made, that there are some -- 61 1 we're still a little ways apart, but I think there's a 2 desire to get together. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: My suggestion is that we ask 4 Franklin and Tim or Paul to get together and just do an 5 outline. Not point-by-point, but just, "Drainage, County's 6 requirement is more stringent in that it requires 'X' 7 roads." Same for major collector, "County's more stringent 8 for country lane," whatever. Just a -- not a -- not real 9 detailed, but so that we understand where we're the same and 10 where we're different. You know, just fairly broad. And 11 that will give us some idea of how we can come together, 12 'cause we are going to have to come together. Perhaps -- 13 I'll offer that as a suggestion. 14 MAYOR FINE: We can -- we know where we are 15 right now, but it may change slightly in the next few 16 months, and we can fine-tune it then. But, really, there's 17 nothing we can do right now. 18 MR. LAUGHLIN: One of the things we may do, 19 we may be able to make some interim amendments to our 20 existing subdivision ordinance that would apply city-wide. 21 And, again, depends on the issue and how it impacts 22 development, 'cause obviously, different factors inside -- 23 with more dense development inside the city is -- is -- you 24 know, may not justify it. We'll just have to look at that. 25 MAYOR FINE: And if you want a letter of 62 1 intent to satisfy the Legislature -- 2 MR. LAUGHLIN: Maybe we don't want it in 3 writing saying we're not going to comply with April 1st. I 4 don't know. 5 MAYOR FINE: Just don't put a date when we're 6 going to -- 7 MS. SULLIVAN: We're in the process. 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: It's our intent to do 9 what the Legislature says. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. I think we've rolled 11 that one out of the barn enough. Next one is consider and 12 discuss recent legislative changes to city road maintenance, 13 and participation in maintenance on annexed roads. 14 MAYOR FINE: This was brought up several 15 times in the past, about the County's participation with 16 annexed roads. A good deal of the funds -- I know it's been 17 a thorn in a lot of people's sides for a long time, but the 18 money goes from the city to pay for the county roads, and 19 none of it's spent back in the city. And, apparently the 20 Legislature finally acted on that. 21 MR. LAUGHLIN: Actually, '99 Legislature did 22 that. 23 MAYOR FINE: '99. And -- 24 MR. LAUGHLIN: We just haven't done anything 25 with it. 63 1 MAYOR FINE: Yeah. And we just wanted to 2 discuss -- our roads are probably in the same shape as 3 y'all's. These hot, dry summers -- long, hot, dry summers 4 followed by extremely wet seasons have taken their toll on a 5 lot of roads in the city. I'm sure they have in the county. 6 Our potholes have potholes. And -- you know, and it wasn't 7 just because of this last year that this came up. The 8 Legislature changed -- it was brought up at the City back 9 then about approaching the County, but we weren't having 10 meetings like this to discuss it with y'all, so it just kind 11 of got shelved. And, now that we're here together, it was a 12 good time to bring -- bring this up. And I'm sure it's like 13 everything; every -- you know, everyone has their budgets 14 and what they're going to spend on roads. It's like we have 15 a resurfacing project that's ongoing in the city. I don't 16 know how many years it's going to take us to resurface the 17 entire downtown, but it is on a rotating basis; hopefully 18 eventually we'll hit everybody. But we wanted to discuss 19 this change in the law and how it might affect Kerrville and 20 Kerr County. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: It was actually two changes 22 in the law. One is that -- one which allows the City to 23 make a contribution to maintenance of roads in a 24 municipality. The other change, and I think the change 25 which really triggers the discussion, is the fact that the 64 1 law now says if you annex part of a road, you must annex the 2 whole road. 3 MAYOR FINE: Right. 4 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: And the change in connection 6 with Peterson Farm Road and then the new Catholic high 7 school. 8 MAYOR FINE: Right. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because I raised the issue 10 with Ron -- I'll take advantage of that fact that he's not 11 here -- that the major access for that facility is going to 12 be Peterson Farm Road. 13 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: And the County has no plans 15 to do anything to that road, other than routine maintenance 16 as part of our schedule of surfacing, just like you have. 17 And that road, in my opinion, is not adequate to handle the 18 traffic that it has now -- or had, because that was the main 19 access in and out of Mooney. 20 MAYOR FINE: Right. 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: It certainly won't have the 22 capacity to handle the traffic when that high school is 23 built out there. 24 MAYOR FINE: Were there any plans in the 25 County's master plan to upgrade that road at all because of 65 1 traffic in and out of Mooney? 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: No. 3 MAYOR FINE: I mean, if it's already 4 overutilized -- there was no plan? 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Actually, I think -- is part 6 of that road -- the upper part of that road in the city, 7 Leonard? 8 MR. ODOM: Yes, sir, down there by Mooney. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: That part is actually -- 10 MR. ODOM: That portion is the city. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Al Mooney Road, 12 right? 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, the part of Peterson Farm 14 Road right by -- 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mooney Road connects 16 with Peterson Farm Road in that area. 17 MR. ODOM: At that old structure. 18 MAYOR FINE: That services the actual Mooney 19 facility, then? 20 MR. ODOM: That's your city limits right 21 there. 22 MAYOR FINE: Okay. But that's our joint 23 property, so we can't count that. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah, that's true. That's 25 true. 66 1 MAYOR FINE: Won't give you that one. 2 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, and that's something we 3 need to look at. Of course, we -- when we annexed that 4 property, we annexed based on the property line, so we 5 didn't annex any part of Peterson Farm Road. And, of 6 course, in that particular annexation, our notice for our 7 first public hearing came before September 1st, so the law 8 didn't apply to that annexation anyway. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. That was very 10 carefully done, yes. 11 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, no, actually quite 12 accidentally done. Frankly, I didn't even know about the 13 change in the law until after you had made mention of it to 14 Ron. 15 JUDGE HENNEKE: Which was before the 1st, 16 though. 17 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, but I didn't learn about 18 it until afterwards. But, as it -- as it turns out, I mean, 19 it was -- that just happened to be -- but it does -- it does 20 raise an issue for us to review when we do future 21 annexations, and that is issues dealing with the adjacent 22 roads. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: You cannot assume that, by 24 act of your annexation, you're going to commit us to any 25 sort of road improvement policy projects. 67 1 MR. LAUGHLIN: No, and I don't think there 2 was any assumption made in that regard. At least not to my 3 knowledge. I don't know that anybody even consciously 4 thought about it, to be frank with you. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Leonard? 6 MR. ODOM: Yes. I believe that the law 7 says -- and he can check it to be sure -- that anything 8 since 1999, when that was written in, and that encumbers any 9 annexation of up to 1999 to the present time till 1 10 September, is to be put into that law. So, just because 11 there's a date there that you say is before August the 30th 12 has nothing to do -- it's still in there. Any plans that 13 were presented in 1999 would be -- that law affects. 14 MR. LAUGHLIN: I think you're -- 15 MR. ODOM: You can check me to be sure. 16 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, I've done it. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: My only comment is, I'm 18 thinking of the roads, and I guess it gets to a situation -- 19 I mean, if the County can -- I can see the City's, you know, 20 taxpayers' -- their arguments, but they're also using county 21 roads, most of them. And I think, as an example, that 22 Sheppard Rees is probably one of the best examples that -- 23 that's, you know, a major upgrade that the County is doing 24 on that, which is becoming a major thoroughfare into the 25 city, and that's as much a city road as it is a county road 68 1 by a usage standpoint, and getting more and more that way. 2 That's one of the reasons we're committing a huge amount of 3 money to do a major upgrade there. We're fortunate -- both 4 of us are fortunate that most of the major thoroughfares 5 coming in and out of Kerrville are state, so we can get 6 participation from them on most of it. But I think that -- 7 you know, I mean, if we start -- I mean, there's a fixed pot 8 of money that the County has for roads, and if we have to 9 start putting some of that money into the city limits, that 10 just means the county roads are going to get worse, which is 11 going to affect the city residents and the county residents. 12 So, I mean, I -- there are some projects we work on 13 together, like the High Water Bridge or Thompson Drive and 14 all that. That's a joint city/county project. But I 15 just -- I can't see the logic of the Commissioners Court 16 heading away from county road projects to do something like 17 Guadalupe Street, you know. And I don't -- you know, or 18 just give you a blank check and say, "Well, here's the money 19 for the city's road fund." I would be willing, 20 individually, as a Commissioner, to -- certain projects, you 21 know, let's talk about it. We now have the ability to help, 22 by the legislation, but I don't think that I just want to 23 see us doing it on a regular basis, just carte blanche, 24 saying, "Here's the money." 25 MS. SULLIVAN: We pay taxes to the road 69 1 district on a regular basis. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So it's -- I mean, 3 it's -- 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: If we get into the issue of, 5 you know, if you're in this jurisdiction, you pay this tax, 6 so you should get benefits, we get into a lot of sticky, 7 difficult areas there. 8 MS. SULLIVAN: That's true. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: With E.I.C. 10 MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah. Yeah, true. 11 JUDGE HENNEKE: Probably conservatively, oh, 12 40 percent of the funds that end up in E.I.C. come from 13 outside of the city limits, but they have to be spent in the 14 city. 15 MAYOR FINE: A lot of it comes from outside 16 the county, too. Some of it comes from outside the county; 17 probably 10, 15 percent comes from outside, and that's where 18 the funds for library are coming. 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you get into that issue, 20 how do you start parsing those questions? And I think 21 that's something that's very, very difficult to -- 22 MS. SULLIVAN: To do fairly. 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- to do equitably. I'd like 24 to think -- I'd like to look more in terms of, well, let's 25 see how we can -- we can perhaps meet periodically and have 70 1 a -- a common road maintenance strategy and, as Jonathan 2 said, perhaps identify specific projects we can cooperate on 3 that are -- are really significant, like Thompson Drive and 4 High Water Bridge, or we might even look ultimately towards 5 the idea of having more of a combined maintenance program. 6 MAYOR FINE: But talking about the people 7 from the city going out and using the county roads, it's a 8 fair statement to say that people from the county come into 9 the city and use the city roads. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. 11 MAYOR FINE: Just as much, if not more. Most 12 of them come into the city and go to work. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: And spend money. 14 MAYOR FINE: Right. But as properties are 15 annexed and developed, your tax base goes up, just like ours 16 does, so to say that the city's the only one benefitting 17 from it is not right. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I don't think any of us 19 are trying to say that. I'm just trying to say if we start 20 talking about, well, taxes are paid to a certain 21 jurisdiction, so they ought to -- and we live in another 22 one, so those taxes ought to be spent in the other 23 jurisdiction, then we have to address the issue of sales 24 tax, E.I.C. money. 25 MAYOR FINE: Well, no, 'cause E.I.C. was set 71 1 up by the citizens of Kerrville for the citizens of 2 Kerrville. Now, whether you come into town and -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: But the tax -- you know, a 4 large amount of the revenue comes from outside of the city 5 of Kerrville, and you don't return that revenue. 6 MAYOR FINE: Well, no, because they come into 7 the city to spend it. If I go out and eat supper outside in 8 the county, you're not going to pay me money. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But by that logic, 10 Stephen, the people that live in the Comfort area never pay 11 -- why should they pay to fix Kerrville if the State's -- 12 MAYOR FINE: They're not. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But you're saying we 14 should spend some of the tax dollars from Kerr County in the 15 city. Well, then, why shouldn't -- logically, why 16 shouldn't, you know, we spend some of our money in Kendall 17 County because they're using city of Boerne? 18 MAYOR FINE: I think the logic is, the 19 money's spent where the money's taken in. I mean, if half 20 your tax base comes out of the city of Kerrville, at least a 21 portion of that money should go back into the city of 22 Kerrville, 'cause right now you're taking city of Kerrville 23 money, if that's the way you want to look at it, and 24 spending it in Comfort. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I'm saying I think that's a 72 1 dangerous way to look at it. 2 MAYOR FINE: Okay. That's the way it was 3 brought up. I mean, I didn't -- 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: The way you get with -- you 5 know, and I'm just tying to say, I think that's a very 6 dangerous -- 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: There's sort of a loop 8 you get into when you start down that trail. You might be 9 able to deal with it, but it would be very difficult. I 10 like the idea of -- of the joint project kind of things, 11 where -- where it's obvious that there's an interest in both 12 entities and both jurisdictions, that we sit down and we do 13 that as a joint planning effort and say, well, what can we 14 do? What should we do? And perhaps we assign it to one or 15 the other jurisdictions, and then -- but share some funding 16 in that for that specific project. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: An example would be that if 18 we get to the point where the City gets the property and 19 decides to extend Loop 534 to Highway 16, just east of the 20 State Park, I mean, that's clearly a project that I think 21 the County would be justified in participating in, 22 regardless of where the annexation stops. That's the kind 23 of project that I think, if it came to the Commissioners 24 Court, the Commissioners Court would say, "Yeah, we can see 25 a lot of direct benefit, and we're willing to make a 73 1 financial contribution or a talent contribution to that 2 project." That's what -- I think that's what we're saying. 3 If we identify joint projects, then we can combine our 4 finances. 5 MAYOR FINE: Too late to hit you guys up on 6 Holdsworth? 7 MS. SULLIVAN: That's a big -- 8 MR. LAUGHLIN: Part of it's in the county 9 right now. 10 MAYOR FINE: Yeah, part of it's in the 11 county. 12 MR. LAUGHLIN: We haven't annexed it yet. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the type of 14 project I would think would be justifiable coming to us and 15 doing. And I think there's -- when everyone sees the 16 transportation master plan, there's going to be a lot more 17 on the horizon. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'd rather approach 19 it on a project-by-project basis and weigh the relative 20 merits than to get into a constant discussion over your 21 money versus our money. I think that leads us nowhere. 22 MAYOR FINE: Well, obviously, it's not just 23 city of Kerrville. I mean, it was done on a statewide 24 basis, not something that is exclusive to Kerrville or Kerr 25 County or anywhere else. And it's enough of an issue now, 74 1 as the cities are growing. I mean, look at Kerrville, how 2 it's growing right now, and y'all are having a lot of growth 3 in the county; in fact, more than we are. And a lot of 4 those people are coming into town to work, and we're 5 experiencing some of the wear and tear on the roads because 6 of that. And I think it's worth discussing, anyway. 7 Whether it's a merit-by-merit basis or we look at some other 8 ways to make it happen, I think it -- it's something that's 9 on the table. I think it needs to be discussed and looked 10 at further, because, like I say, I think it's a fair 11 statement that there's a lot more county people, on a daily 12 basis, coming into the city than vice-versa. I mean, I know 13 I probably don't use the county roads once in -- very 14 rarely, 'cause the way my route is, I'm either on I-10 or -- 15 you know, rarely on I-10; I'm on the state highways. And 16 maybe I'm not a good example, but I think a lot of people 17 work, live, go to school, eat in the city limits, and most 18 of them don't go out in the county to eat, where a lot of 19 them come into the city to eat. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: That's right. And that sales 21 tax goes, then, into the City coffers and E.I.C. coffers, 22 and it stays -- 23 MAYOR FINE: But the County also gets some 24 sales tax. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: We get some from that too. 75 1 MAYOR FINE: Y'all are getting the same 2 proportion that we are, so -- 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: No, y'all get a major hit 4 from E.I.C. 5 MAYOR FINE: Well, y'all have that same 6 option, too, and we have a joint project in the library. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 MAYOR FINE: That's available to the County, 9 too, if they want to go that route, so it's not -- to say 10 that we have something y'all don't is not fair, because the 11 citizens of Kerrville set that up for themselves. We didn't 12 thumb our nose at the County when it happened; you guys had 13 the same options. You just used your sales tax for 14 different things than we did. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you've maxed 16 it out in the city, Stephen. I don't know that we could 17 apply it even if we were of a mind to do so, because there's 18 a cap on the total amount you can apply, so I think we may 19 be maxed out in that regards. 20 MAYOR FINE: But, even so, you know -- 21 JUDGE HENNEKE: But it's something we can 22 talk about. 23 MAYOR FINE: For every penny of sales tax we 24 get, you guys get some also, so it's not like you're being 25 excluded from -- 76 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: There are different ways we 2 can cooperate on that, I think. The solution is to find 3 ways that both governing jurisdictions are comfortable with. 4 MAYOR FINE: I think the same thing applies 5 to the road portion also. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- and this was 7 not specifically talked about here, but there's also -- 8 there's roads that, you know, in my mind should be city 9 roads, too, that are currently county roads. And the ones 10 that come to mind are up around Stadium Drive, some of those 11 streets that are -- 12 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Those people don't 14 understand why they're not city roads. I mean, and it's 15 hard to explain it, "Well, they never annexed them." And -- 16 but I think that it's part of the overall picture on roads, 17 in this whole suggestion; we need to look at some of these 18 roads that are -- where they may not technically be in the 19 city limits, they basically should be or are. 20 MAYOR FINE: Also, people didn't want to be 21 annexed years ago, when the roads were put in. That's why 22 they're -- and they still don't want to be. You may have a 23 few of them that do, but I think most of them probably -- 24 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, let me ask you this, 25 just on this question, because one of the things, obviously, 77 1 I assume that's being looked at as part of the comprehensive 2 plan review is some of those irregular annexations we've got 3 on that northwest quadrant of town that you mentioned. 4 Would the Court at least discuss and entertain the 5 possibility of maybe doing something on those county 6 sections that would then encourage us to go ahead and annex 7 it and get it off your books for once and for all? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I would think -- 9 MR. LAUGHLIN: 'Cause one of the things -- 10 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. I mean, I think, 12 you know, that's reasonable, yes. I would say yes. I mean, 13 I think that just -- some of the roads that I'm thinking 14 about, it's just difficult for the County to take their 15 equipment the to the city, almost. It's not efficient. And 16 I think that -- I would support that, I guess, but we have 17 to work with -- 18 MR. LAUGHLIN: I mean, we do -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Road and Bridge. 20 MR. LAUGHLIN: As long as it's something that 21 could be put on the table for discussion. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure. 23 MR. LAUGHLIN: For planning purposes, 'cause 24 I think, ultimately -- again, we've talked at a staff level. 25 Ultimately, we'd like to get rid of a lot of our irregular 78 1 boundaries, but some of that -- some of those areas, it's 2 difficult for us to -- just economically, to be able to go 3 in and do that right now, with everything else we've got on 4 the table. So, to the extent that we could get some of the 5 funding for that. And, of course, you have no development 6 occurring -- the folks in there, you know, in those areas 7 typically can't afford to do it themselves. So, you know, 8 maybe we can work on something along those lines. 9 MR. JOHNSTON: When Holdsworth comes in, are 10 you going to annex over to the interstate, or take in a big 11 chunk, or just along the road, or how are you going to do 12 that? 13 MR. LAUGHLIN: We haven't actually decided 14 that. 15 MAYOR FINE: Depends on what shape the roads 16 are in. 17 MR. ODOM: Put sealcoat on them. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else on this one? 19 If not, let's take a break and let's reconvene promptly at 20 8:15, and we'll finish up here pretty shortly. 21 (Recess taken from 8:05 p.m. to 8:15 p.m.) 22 - - - - - - - - - - 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. If we could reconvene, 24 we have three more items to take up this evening. Next item 25 for consideration, which is Number 6, is consider and 79 1 discuss facility enhancements and partnerships for regional 2 wastewater facilities, including the U.G.R.A. And we're 3 glad to have with us this evening Mr. Jim Brown, the General 4 Manager of the U.G.R.A. Welcome, Jim. Always glad for your 5 input. 6 MR. BROWN: I'm here to get the latest poop 7 on this. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Wrong use of words. 9 MS. SULLIVAN: Wrong term. 10 MR. BROWN: No pun intended. 11 MR. LAUGHLIN: Sure. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Take it away, buddy. 13 MAYOR FINE: Paul Knippel's going to lead us 14 on this one, as far as some of the work that's been done on 15 it going back with some of my participation, involving -- 16 along with U.G.R.A., the -- we've been looking at Kerrville 17 for a long time as being the regional wastewater provider. 18 Years ago, every small town had its own sewer facility along 19 with its own water production facility, and I think the 20 F.D.A. -- not F.D.A., the E.P.A. kind of helped everybody 21 get away from this. They're wanting more regional systems 22 now. It's a lot harder for a city such as Ingram to get a 23 permit to do wastewater treatment than it used to be. And 24 it only makes sense, as we have the facility, and due to the 25 location of it especially, that we become that provider of 80 1 wastewater treatment in the county -- or in the area; I 2 guess we're not limited to the county, as long as they can 3 get it over the hills. But, it's never been really 4 discussed in a formal setting. It's just come up as bits 5 and pieces. As you know, we've annexed. Obviously, we've 6 taken on those needs as -- as we could, or as necessary. 7 The new elementary school in Ingram is an example; that was 8 put onto the system. And there's been some discussion with 9 U.G.R.A., as they're expanding into water treatment as 10 subdivisions come in having wastewater collection systems 11 that would tie into it, and also the potential for Kerrville 12 South -- not the potential, the -- 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Reality. 14 MR. BROWN: -- reality of Kerrville South 15 coming onto that plan also. And, I think it's just going to 16 be discussed in a more formal setting. And Mr. Knippel 17 knows more about that facility, probably, than I do. 18 Hopefully more than I do. 19 MR. KNIPPEL: My name is Paul Knippel. I'm 20 the Public Works Director for the City of Kerrville. We are 21 working with U.G.R.A. on accepting wastewater from outside 22 the city limits right now. The approach that our staff has 23 taken to looking at these potentials is very simple. Our 24 system as a whole has certain amounts of capacity, and it 25 could tie in at any point around our perimeter. As you 81 1 trace that wastewater flow through our system, through 2 collection lines, through the lift stations, and through the 3 treatment plant, you have an impact on -- you, or whoever 4 that may be, has an impact on our existing system. And that 5 can be quantified mathematically; it's not very difficult. 6 It's a very objective exercise to do that, and to associate 7 a dollar amount with an increase in flow from outside the 8 city limits. So, that's the approach that we took when we 9 were approached by U.G.R.A. about the Kerrville South area, 10 and that's the approach that staff has right now with any 11 other future expansions, or incorporation of flow from 12 outside the city limits. 13 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Quick question, Paul. 14 What is the percentage of that capacity for the system as it 15 exists today, that's currently being utilized? In other 16 words, how much slack capacity is there right now? 17 MR. KNIPPEL: In the -- 18 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: How much could be -- 19 MR. KNIPPEL: In the collection side, that 20 varies. Some places, there's a little bit of excess, but 21 generally in the city, we don't have a lot of room left. 22 Most of our infrastructure in the interior of the city 23 limits, in terms of collection, was built in the '40's. On 24 the treatment side, the treatment plant does have excess 25 capacity available -- treatment capacity available in it 82 1 right now. We have a permit for 4.25 million gallons per 2 day. We're seeing an average flow of around 3 2.3 million gallons per day. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. So there is 5 treatment -- excess treatment capacity, which is great to 6 hear. I just never heard the number before. And I -- 7 MAYOR FINE: Part of the bond issue we just 8 recently voted on Monday is going to upgrade a lot of the 9 wastewater collection lines. That will help tremendously, 10 hopefully, and enable us to -- 11 MS. SULLIVAN: In our head works. 12 MAYOR FINE: Yeah, and replacement of the 13 head works. But as far as the size up in the ground, we're 14 going to increase that so we can, as the city grows or 15 whatever -- as we get more stuff in our lines, we'll be able 16 to handle it right now. As he says, there's areas where 17 we're just, on the capacity, not there. 18 MR. WAMPLER: And to add onto that, we're 19 also replacing about 11,000 feet of pipe that's currently 20 substandard, broken, old, what-have-you, so we've seen a lot 21 of infil -- inflow and infiltration of fresh water during 22 rain that we're treating as part of our waste stream, so if 23 we can reduce that, then the overall system capacity will be 24 more efficient, and so we'll just be treating waste rather 25 than, say, rainwater, storm water, that sort of thing. 83 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I, for one, Stephen, 2 am gratified that the City has taken the position of 3 regional wastewater facility. I think that's super. I 4 think it lends itself to tremendous opportunities for 5 additional projects using the U.G.R.A., if you will, as the 6 middle person, putting out -- giving the County the 7 opportunity to look for grant moneys to -- to bring sewage 8 collection and treatment to areas which need it, which are 9 contributing to water quality problems and contributing to 10 some of their own quality-of-life problems within these 11 small areas. So, I'm gratified by it. And it's going to be 12 my intention, as soon as we break ground on the collection 13 system -- and I think we're just probably a few months away 14 from that; is that correct, Jim? 15 MR. BROWN: Probably toward the end of the 16 year. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Towards the end of 18 the year. That as soon as the first backhoe goes in the 19 ground, I'm going to ask permission for the Court to go out 20 for more grant money, either expand Phase II of that one, 21 and to probably try to move to the eastern part and bring 22 some back this way. So, I think it's a great -- it's a 23 great move on you guys' part. I appreciate you doing it, 24 and willingness to do it, and it lends itself to many, many 25 good opportunities. 84 1 MAYOR FINE: You guys have the ability to go 2 for the grants that we don't. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We can. 4 MAYOR FINE: And U.G.R.A. doesn't. Y'all can 5 do that. It's going to take an effort -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We're good at grants. 7 That's been proven, that we can go out and find that money. 8 MAYOR FINE: And it's going to take an effort 9 of all three entities -- 10 MS. SULLIVAN: To get the whole thing 11 together. 12 MAYOR FINE: Yeah, to make it all happen. We 13 can't go into Kerrville South and do what y'all have been 14 able to do, or y'all will be able to do with the grant. But 15 if you bring it, we can treat it. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's great. That's 17 what we want to hear. 18 MAYOR FINE: At least up to -- 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Up to the maximum -- 20 MAYOR FINE: Up to the maximum. Well, not 21 quite the maximum; we got to start upgrading when we hit, 22 what, 85 percent? 23 MR. LAUGHLIN: Seventy-five. 24 MR. KNIPPEL: Well, at 75 percent, you have 25 to start planning. At 90 percent, you have to be under 85 1 construction. 2 MS. SULLIVAN: You have to be under 3 construction. 4 MAYOR FINE: So there's some limits in there, 5 but just don't bring it too fast. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No. It takes a while 7 to get the stuff moving. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Jim? 9 MR. BROWN: I -- there's -- and I'm sorry 10 Tim's not here. Last Thursday, I delivered a -- presented a 11 paper for the Texas Water Laws seminar in Austin on 12 conjunctive water use practices of U.G.R.A., a new group in 13 the frontier. And one of the things I looked at is what's 14 happening in our area, and -- and I don't think that we 15 realized that if you look at what's occurring in Kerrville 16 South and Center Point and everything out between here and 17 Ingram and the Ingram area, if you look at what the water -- 18 the investor-owned utilities are selling them water, and if 19 you apply the 80 percent factor to that -- or the 20 80 percent -- I think the City of Kerrville says that 21 80 percent of the water they sell ends up back into their 22 wastewater system. If you apply that number to the amount 23 of -- of water that we're currently losing in septic tanks, 24 through evapotranspiration and ground absorption or 25 whatever, there's enough water there -- if we brought that 86 1 back and treated it, there's enough water there to sustain 2 5,800 households that we are currently losing. I know no 3 one around here wants to talk about drinking treated 4 effluent, but let's get realistic. The Region J plan -- I 5 mean, we've moved up to 2035, we looked at 2050, but we 6 still have water shortages. And I think that -- I think 7 that we have to consider the amount of natural resources 8 that we're losing through septic tanks that, through this 9 joint project, then we could bring that water back in, it 10 could be treated and distributed back out to the county 11 water users. So, it's more than -- I mean, cleaning up the 12 creeks and taking care of the watershed is really U.G.R.A.'s 13 responsibility, but a side -- a side benefit from that is 14 that we're developing new water resources. 15 MAYOR FINE: I definitely agree with you. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Okay. Anything else on that 17 one? 18 MAYOR FINE: Nope. That was an easy one. 19 MS. SULLIVAN: Yeah, it was. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Item 7, consider and discuss 21 potential of joint operations for garage services, municipal 22 court, common dispatch, et cetera. 23 MR. TUNE: Okay. Let me try the first two, 24 and Chuck can do common dispatch. These are things I think, 25 over the years, we've talked about several times with the 87 1 different bodies, and I'll start with the garage services 2 here. This will be much like what we've done with the 3 Animal Control area, where one group does it all. There's 4 some challenges with it. There would have to be some 5 capital out front. And -- and we have four bays right now 6 -- or five bays with four people and three lifts. We did 7 some -- I think Ron and the Judge have talked about this a 8 little bit, so we've done some preliminary studies. We got 9 some -- some of y'all's fleet, that kind of stuff, and 10 looked at it, and just to give you some rough idea of what 11 it would take, it would probably take a couple more bays, a 12 lift, a couple of more employees. It would be -- we'd try 13 to put it together somehow where the County would have their 14 own -- we would run it, so to speak, like y'all do Animal 15 Control, but you wouldn't -- your vehicles wouldn't be 16 staggered any different than anybody else's. In other 17 words, it wouldn't be city first, county last, or -- it 18 wouldn't be one of those, so it would be dedicated for the 19 county. 20 Again, the problems with this would be -- or 21 the challenges would be capital outlay would be needed. It 22 would be a while before it broke even. In other words, it 23 would probably cost us more than we would get back for a 24 period of time; then it would be a break-even -- there would 25 probably be some savings. The main thing we have found out 88 1 is that our garage -- where it gives us our biggest benefit 2 is that things get in and out, more than it is a savings, 3 even though we do think we have a savings there. We've also 4 done things to cut down on fuel and different other things 5 to try to get with the times, so that's one area. Municipal 6 Court, this one -- 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: Why don't we take these in 8 turn? 9 MR. TUNE: Okay, sure. Could I answer any 10 questions? 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: On that one, I think 12 what I would sure like to see, if we could do it, 'cause I 13 see -- I know that the question is, should we pursue this 14 with any more staff time? Should you pursue it with any 15 more staff time? And I think what I'd like to see is sort 16 of a rough order of magnitude cost model, and where would it 17 break even? And that -- and not spending a lot of detailed 18 time on that, but sort of, is this a big -- 19 MR. TUNE: Obviously, this is one of these 20 tail end of the budget things, because it's numbers. And I 21 guess what we would like to have is just what Larry -- what 22 you're saying. If y'all even have an interest in this one, 23 we can get you some more numbers. There's some 24 possibilities -- there's some good possibilities with the 25 garage. It has some -- you know, there's going to be some 89 1 problems working it out because of the cost and things like 2 that, but it could even be bigger. It could take in the 3 school. I mean, there's all kinds of opportunities here 4 that this thing could really kind of take off. 5 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think it's worth 6 looking at, and we need some rough numbers without spending 7 a whole gob of your staff time, just some rough numbers of 8 what it looks like. Is it big? Small? How many years 9 would it take to break even? 10 MR. TUNE: We can do that for you. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's a related 12 issue, too, Dane, and I'm not sure that -- I don't want to 13 get too deeply into it. I know there are environmental 14 concerns, but that is fuel, a centralized purchase of fuel. 15 I assume you guys purchase your fuel outside, just like we 16 purchase ours outside. Are there -- is there an economy of 17 scale that can be acquired? 18 MR. TUNE: We bid it, and the short answer -- 19 yes, the short answer is yes. Now, we used to have our own 20 fuel, our own tanks and all of that. We don't any more. We 21 closed all that out and we bid it, and we pull up and take a 22 card and swipe it and gas up and are gone. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We do that too. 24 MR. TUNE: Yeah. 25 MR. LAUGHLIN: But we've only had one bidder 90 1 for the last two years, the one local vendor who's -- 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think that's been 3 the case for us, too. Right, Sheriff? 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Two or three last time. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Currently, we use the 6 exact same gas people the City does. We did have three 7 bidders last year, and all in all, they were very close to 8 each other. It was just a mark-up price in the long run 9 that -- that made the current one that we're using a better 10 option. I -- you know, I still think it's -- it's a very 11 good possibility on all of it. The joint garage part 12 would -- would be great in some ways. Some of the 13 discussions I had -- and it would be just a matter of 14 running numbers -- was that if it was just taking over our 15 department's -- our units and patrol and that, as far as 16 some aspects of it, being oil changes, okay, just normal, 17 day-to-day maintenance, and I provided y'all's guy with 18 the -- with the cost and figures of what we're currently 19 paying. His -- his words to me was there was no way the 20 City could do it for that cost; that it would be higher than 21 that for this normal maintenance, okay? That was where 22 we're getting it; there wasn't any way they could beat what 23 we're paying already. 24 You know, major service stuff and that, I 25 don't know if they grouped in more -- more people into it or 91 1 more agencies, you know. I don't know if you added -- and 2 then there was a deal that he had said that concerned me, 3 and I think just expanding of the facility would -- would 4 take it, is -- of course, all of us, being EMS, fire, you 5 know, Chuck, our departments, all of us think that our 6 vehicles individually should be priority, okay? Because 7 we're all limited, and there is going to be just some having 8 to work out those type of deals to make sure that -- that 9 everybody's are equal priority on getting them out. Except 10 EMS probably should be a little bit more, so -- the rest of 11 us have enough units we can share. But it's just minor 12 things that, personally, I think it would be a great idea if 13 we can work out those little ones, get the numbers. 14 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think it's the way you look 15 at it. I mean, if any government maintenance facility can't 16 do an oil change cheaper than the Oil Stop, well, we ought 17 to shut it down and all go to the Oil Stop. If we can't do 18 unit cost cheaper than we can get it done at Walmart or the 19 Oil Stop, then we shouldn't be operating a facility. So, I 20 think it's all in the way you look at it. And -- and I 21 think there are benefits to it. 22 MAYOR FINE: The school does all their own 23 maintenance, don't they? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Mm-hmm. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: I think Ron may have had some 92 1 very preliminary discussions with the school. He told me he 2 was going to approach them. Now, whether he did or not, I 3 don't know if he had time. Things have been pretty hectic 4 the last two or three months. 5 MR. TUNE: We know our garage person did 6 call. I don't know the results from that. We did take 7 y'all's numbers. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 9 MR. TUNE: The oil thing, just to touch on 10 it, we do more than oil changes. We don't run them in, run 11 them out. Our -- our people do a full-blown check on cars 12 and things like that. If you -- if you're doing the same 13 thing, maybe we could get cheaper. You know, let our staff 14 do that sort of stuff, but that would be the kind of numbers 15 we'd want to pull out -- figure out, would this work for 16 both groups or not? 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: And this is a long-term -- 18 it's like the T-hangars. We're not making any money on the 19 T-hangars yet, 'cause we haven't got our capital investment 20 back yet, but we will over time. And it makes a 21 contribution to the operation of the airport. The same 22 thing with the maintenance. I mean, if you have a 23 seven-year payback, you're probably money ahead to do that, 24 because the facility you're going to build is certainly 25 going to operate for more than seven years, and that's the 93 1 way we have to look at things. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dane, the -- to me, 3 there's two -- the vehicles that are, you know, like light 4 trucks and cars are one set. Then you also have the heavy 5 equipment part. Have you looked -- have you looked at both 6 sides, or just the -- 7 MR. TUNE: A lot of the heavy equipment we 8 have to farm out. It's just too much. We do have one 9 person that can work on diesel and all that, some of the 10 bigger things, but that -- that's pretty tough. The 11 equipment and the weight on some of them are kind of 12 dangerous. Most of that we farm out. We farm out body 13 work, transmission work. There's a few things we just don't 14 have the expertise to do with all the different cars and 15 everything, but as far as -- you know, if a car breaks down, 16 we can get it in, and if it does need a transmission or 17 needs -- we get them to the places and get them back and get 18 them on the road. It's just some of it we have to -- we 19 have vendors we use outside to get the vehicles to. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Would there be any 21 merit in looking at our doing the heavy ones and you doing 22 the regular light vehicles? 23 MR. TUNE: Could possibly be. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 'Cause we're equipped 25 to do the heavy ones. 94 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We are, but at the same 2 time, we don't -- we lease more and more and more, and have 3 a quicker turnover. 4 MR. WAMPLER: I think we've got some older 5 equipment, but we're moving in that direction too, leasing 6 with service contracts and getting out of the maintenance 7 business. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause we don't -- 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: What Ron and I discussed is 10 we basically agreed that we just wouldn't touch the heavy 11 stuff, because that was too specialized and not enough 12 volume to make it worthwhile. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 'Cause, I mean, I don't 14 think we hardly own any heavy equipment any more. Very 15 little. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, I think our consensus 17 is we'd like to push a little further and see what we get. 18 MR. TUNE: Okay. The next one, Municipal 19 Court. This is a little more complicated. It has to do 20 with some legal questions. Let me tell you where we are on 21 this. Chuck wants to get the court out of there, because, 22 number one, he needs the space. If you've been to our 23 court, it's not anything like this, okay? There's -- we are 24 really crowded and cramped in there. We bring in about 25 $200,000 a year. We have three good people in there. We 95 1 got a part-time judge. It works. We get them in, we get 2 them out, but we don't have a lot of space. So, we're 3 looking for something -- possibly either, one, to move it 4 over and have it done -- just like we're talking about the 5 garage, we would do it the opposite. Or possibly, if that 6 doesn't work because of legal reasons -- there's a good 7 chance that might not work. We just don't know. We've 8 tried this about ten years ago, looking into it, and we just 9 ran into so many -- so many obstacles, we just sort of gave 10 up, so we haven't done a lot of research on this one, but it 11 might -- that might work. The other option is, of course, 12 we just rent some space. If y'all would rent us some space 13 or something and we provide our -- our people, those kind of 14 things could be done jointly. Y'all do it, renting to those 15 sort of things. So, that's pretty much it. It's just a -- 16 for us, it's a space problem. We're going to have to find 17 some other way of doing it over the next year or two; we're 18 going to have to make some kind of a change, and so this is 19 one that we would -- we would entertain any thoughts y'all 20 might have on that, or if y'all had any interest in that. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's -- 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: First crack out of the 23 bag, do any of you lawyers know if there's a possibility of 24 doing that? 25 MR. LAUGHLIN: Well, I think it's possible. 96 1 There are some questions -- and, again, I haven't spent any 2 time on it researching it. I mean, issues that we would 3 need to research, though, would be things like, you know, 4 particularly on jurisdictional issues on judges. I mean, 5 you know, to what extent could any of the J.P.'s, if that 6 were the case -- in other words, if we were talking about 7 actually having one or more of the J.P. courts doing the 8 municipal court work, you know, from a jurisdictional 9 standpoint, can we even do that? One. Of course, then 10 you've got whether or not J.P.'s would want to do that; 11 that's two, you know. And, so, let's see how -- 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The answer is yes? 13 MR. LAUGHLIN: So -- you know, so I think 14 it's -- and then it's -- the question is, okay, even if you 15 did that, which cases that came through the city could or 16 could not be, from a jurisdictional standpoint, handled? In 17 other words, traffic tickets. I think there's -- there's 18 overlapping jurisdiction between J.P. courts and municipal 19 courts inside the city, although cities have primary 20 jurisdictional responsibility for that. I'm not sure the 21 case would necessarily be the same for our Code Enforcement 22 prosecutions, you know, our zoning issues and -- and, you 23 know, weed lots and things like that, so -- those things 24 that arise strictly under city ordinances. So, it would 25 seem to me, from just looking at the judges alone, those are 97 1 some issues that would have to be dealt with, if they could 2 be overcome at all. Then you get into, okay, who's doing 3 the prosecution? I mean, is it somebody hired by my office? 4 Is it the County Attorney's office? You know, again, it's a 5 staffing issue at the prosecution level. How does that get 6 handled? 7 I think the one thing that could -- has a 8 potential for most easily being combined of anything would 9 be just the court administration, the clerk-type operations. 10 You know, it -- there is -- and, again, exploring all the 11 issues that would be involved in that, you know, as far as 12 recordkeeping, software, computer, you know, money-handling, 13 collection of fees, all that kind of stuff. You know, how 14 does that get worked through on the administration side? I 15 mean, it's -- you know, because you've got all these state 16 reporting issues with all the state court fees that we 17 collect and county court fees that we collect and all that. 18 Even with municipal court and stuff, you know, what all the 19 issues are dealing with reporting that. So, as Dane said, 20 it -- it is -- it can be a very complicated issue. I mean, 21 it's -- I think, conceptually, it sounds like a really nice 22 thing to do. I'm just thinking it's a little more 23 complicated than trying to put together a garage operation, 24 just because of all the jurisdictional issues. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Kevin, how much -- or how 98 1 often does your Municipal Court meet, and how much time 2 would they actually be in the courtroom? 3 MR. LAUGHLIN: We hold court -- right now, 4 we're holding court every other Tuesday afternoon at 4:00 5 during the school year, 'cause Mark does juveniles at 6 4 o'clock -- 4:30 on Tuesdays, every other Tuesday, and then 7 every -- every other Wednesday morning, so basically two -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, every -- 9 MR. LAUGHLIN: -- part-days, you know, three 10 -- about three days a month. Plus we're doing one jury day 11 maybe once every six to eight weeks. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems like, on that, I 13 mean, it would be very easy to figure out how to meld that 14 schedule into one of the courtrooms in this building. 15 MR. LAUGHLIN: I think if it was just -- if 16 it were something as simple as available court space, you 17 know, to solve our space issue, and we could work something 18 out, that -- you know, that might work. But -- but the 19 thing is, even if -- even with -- you know, one of the 20 things to think about, though, that even with just holding 21 court in the courtroom, we still have the -- the clerks are 22 there every day collecting fines as people come in and pay 23 their tickets, and so -- and file their pleadings and 24 what-have-you, so our clerks are there full-time. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 99 1 MR. DICKERSON: Sheriff's got it figured out. 2 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What if, due to -- and I 3 wouldn't suggest, from what I've seen of the courtroom use 4 in this courthouse, that the courthouse would actually have 5 enough use for it, but what I'm wondering is if, with a 6 little addition out the -- the side of the building at the 7 current Law Enforcement Center for just office space, 8 itself -- to me, it would seem like that would be a 9 possibility of keeping your court exactly like it is, but 10 moving it to that current location and sharing with that 11 J.P. courtroom we have out there. That is a nice courtroom, 12 too. And then it gives more access to, one, the inmates 13 that need to be in court, and -- 'cause we do a lot of 14 paperwork and that back and forth, as far as time served on 15 city, and what we were talking about earlier, the number of 16 city arrests compared to county arrests. We're all putting 17 about the same number of people in there. And later, when 18 we get into the common dispatch part of it, it could also 19 figure into that, but it would just be -- be office space 20 itself out there that is not currently there, that, like, 21 J.P. 2 has. But the courtroom out there is a -- a very 22 nice, up-to-date courtroom, and with the number of court 23 days y'all have, I don't see why something couldn't be 24 worked out with the J.P. on that. 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Basically, the concept is 100 1 that we run nine courts right now, and every one of our 2 courts probably has as many cases as that one does. You 3 know, we can absorb another court with that case load. If 4 we can help you all out, fine. Now, if you can't work it 5 out, we offered. 6 MR. LAUGHLIN: Okay. 7 JUDGE HENNEKE: And I think that -- I don't 8 -- I don't have any qualms about finding J.P.'s that will be 9 willing to sit, you know, three months out of the year for 10 an additional -- 11 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: -- $8,000, $10,000. 13 MR. LAUGHLIN: And, Judge, honestly, like I 14 said, I haven't even looked into the -- you know, started 15 researching the issue, 'cause I kind of wanted to get the 16 feel here of -- of whether or not J.P.'s even had the 17 jurisdictional ability to handle -- to do, you know, city 18 municipal court-generated type of stuff, other type of cases 19 from a jurisdictional standpoint. Maybe they can. Maybe 20 it's some, maybe it's all, maybe it's none. We just -- just 21 have to look at that and see what they want to do. But -- 22 you know, but if it was simply just a matter of 23 space-sharing, I mean, that's -- that's easy, you know. 24 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, it's not -- 25 MR. LAUGHLIN: Easier to handle. 101 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: It may be easier to handle, 2 but it's not easy to handle. 3 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because I don't think you're 5 going to get one of these guys to give up his courtroom. 6 MR. LAUGHLIN: No, I wouldn't even think 7 about that. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Judge Brown, maybe. 9 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The idea that -- that 10 Sheriff Hierholzer has is maybe one to pursue, at least to 11 look at, because then you don't have to change -- there are 12 no jurisdictional questions. It's just the use of the 13 facility. 14 MR. LAUGHLIN: Right. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That we might be able 16 to work out something. 17 MR. LAUGHLIN: And it would make it a little 18 easier for our bailiff to -- if we do have a -- occasionally 19 somebody that he needs to bring over, they're already there. 20 Don't have to haul them all the way across town, put them 21 someplace where we don't have a holding cell. 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: See, there is a cell in 23 that courtroom. There's a cell that actually goes into the 24 courtroom where we can take inmates out of the jail 25 population and put them in the courtroom, and there is a 102 1 camera system and security system that monitors that 2 courtroom, okay. The whole thing would be office space. 3 There is not office space over there to move, you know, City 4 personnel, your clerks and those that would have to -- and 5 then just a scheduling deal on -- on days, to where Dawn, 6 J.P. 2, wouldn't lose any of her court days that she needs 7 that courtroom. But we were using it quite a bit before 8 these courtrooms were finished, when the 198th was doing 9 grand juries out there and actually court cases out there, 10 and it's probably the -- the nicest J.P. court we have. 11 MR. TUNE: How about there, then? If it's 12 all right with y'all, why don't we take a look at that 13 between now and budget time, just take a look at it and 14 we'll kick around the other ideas and bring it back up if it 15 looks like something that's got some possibilities. 16 JUDGE HENNEKE: Sure. 17 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Okay. 18 (Discussion off the record.) 19 JUDGE HENNEKE: What else do we have on that 20 one? 21 MR. DICKERSON: That leads us into common 22 dispatch. You see how well we're getting along. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We have argued over 24 who's going to house it. Chuck has said me, I've said him, 25 and -- 103 1 MR. DICKERSON: We've discussed this common 2 dispatch for quite some time. Basically, what we're waiting 3 on, we haven't ironed out all the firm numbers of what costs 4 are going to be. Waiting for Rusty to get his system up to 5 where his coverage problems don't exist any more and he has 6 his radio system in place. Right now, we don't see that 7 we're going to be saving any people, because we're both 8 running short-handed as it is. The City just gave me an 9 extra dispatcher in this -- this year's budget that I was 10 able to hire -- well, I haven't got him hired yet, but this 11 month. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Are you going to take one of 13 ours? 14 MR. DICKERSON: I can't -- 15 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's a sore subject; 16 we won't talk about it. 17 MR. DICKERSON: But we don't really see that 18 we're going to save a lot on personnel. And it may even 19 cost me -- if we go out to Rusty's house, then it may cost 20 me some new consoles to marry up to his new system -- radio 21 system. And those things are -- we anticipate maybe 22 $20,000, something -- 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Something like that, 24 each. 25 MR. DICKERSON: Something like that, each. 104 1 So, there could be some capital costs there to do this. 2 However, during budget time, we try to come to you and let 3 you know about any kind of long-term savings that we would 4 get out of that, because combining functions should 5 ultimately save us some -- some time -- some money and time 6 somewhere down the road. Those people -- I know we could 7 work a lot more efficiently with my ten and his six. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Seven. 9 MR. DICKERSON: Seven. We should be able to 10 not be coming back to you looking for more people. So, I 11 think last year I was asking for two dispatchers, and I 12 wound up getting one. 13 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes, you did. 14 MR. DICKERSON: If we did do the combined, 15 then, of course, I wouldn't be coming wanting another one. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And Chuck and I have 17 both agreed, there's a -- I think, number one, the biggest 18 benefit of all, we would not save -- and the County may have 19 to come up with where we'd want to make sure the employees 20 that are all dispatchers, the emergency dispatchers in 21 there, are pretty equal on benefits. It would be bad to 22 have one sitting in one chair, another one sitting in 23 another chair with the same exact experience, same training, 24 same everything, and yet they're -- they're way out of whack 25 on benefits and salaries. That would have to be 105 1 something -- I don't see that that's a major problem. That 2 could be adjusted. 3 JUDGE HENNEKE: I don't see how that would 4 work if we had employees of two different jurisdictions. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's why it would be 6 probably better if everybody gets absorbed under one 7 jurisdiction, and then the other jurisdiction helped fund 8 that. The benefits out there would be that Chuck has 9 warrants, you know -- and this was brought up years ago when 10 they talked about dispatch and common dispatch -- and 11 inactive warrants and things like that. Right now, if we 12 arrest somebody that's got city warrants out for them, 13 either we have to send another officer to the city police 14 department to pick up those warrants, or they have to bring 15 them to us. And this is a time deal, 'cause the jail 16 needs -- with a common -- common dispatch we have out 17 there -- since it's a decent facility, we have just like air 18 tubes at the bank that goes from our dispatch office, and 19 air-tube everything that we need, paperwork-wise, straight 20 back to the jail control room, and we could all keep our 21 warrants in one location, to where they're -- you know, 22 working-wise is what I'm getting at. It would be a hundred 23 times more efficient than what we both have now. 24 Service to the public, I think it would be a 25 whole lot more efficient than we both have now. We won't 106 1 have 911 transfers from the city to the county, that the 2 call being transferred gets cut off for some unknown reason, 3 which happens. I mean, it's nobody's fault. That kind of 4 stuff would be alleviated. And, really, the working 5 atmosphere, itself, would -- with everything coming out of 6 one office there, it helps, because his officers will be 7 more attuned to what the county officers have going on 8 call-wise, crime-wise, everything else, okay? It's a closer 9 relationship. We would be more attuned to what the city 10 officers actually have going call-wise and everything else, 11 which is -- can be nothing but a benefit to everybody. 12 'Cause the crooks don't know city limits or county, you 13 know, signs. I mean, they don't care about it. I just 14 think it would be beneficial in a lot more ways than just 15 monetary. 16 MR. DICKERSON: Living in the county, coming 17 in the city, using our services. 18 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Living in the city, 19 going in the county. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No matter which. 21 MR. DICKERSON: Using our streets and stuff. 22 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Dumping their 23 garbage -- 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Dumping their garbage in 25 the county. 107 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No matter which 2 direction it went, if it were coming about, is there 3 sufficient facility space in your operation to handle it? 4 Or yours, Rusty? Vice-versa. 5 MR. DICKERSON: Both of us -- both of us have 6 the ability, I think, to house -- house a combined -- Rusty, 7 like he says, you know, with the jail out there, there's 8 some positives at his location. And he's right, as far as 9 if we are combined, then what's presently at the police 10 department is the PSAP for 911, so, I mean, every call for 11 911 goes in my building. So, if it was -- if we took all of 12 our stuff out to Rusty's, then all of that would just be one 13 place, and that's going to be beneficial, 'cause I know 14 Rusty has complained about getting dropped calls or dropped 15 information off of 911 calls. Of course, some of those 16 don't have information anyways. 17 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: That's true. That's 18 911. 19 MR. DICKERSON: That's another story. 20 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Question. Have -- 21 have you two talked this through with Fire and EMS to make 22 sure that they fit and are comfortable with this kind of 23 arrangement? Would that be -- I mean, is there any -- are 24 there any issues there that -- 25 MR. DICKERSON: I've had discussions with the 108 1 Fire Chief, and right now we presently dispatch for the Fire 2 and EMS -- 3 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Right. 4 MR. DICKERSON: -- P.D. and volunteer fire 5 departments and stuff, so he's aware that we have these 6 conversations going on and something's going to be coming 7 down the road. So, I guess we could get his input. 8 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Yeah. And the nice -- 9 with the new system that the County will have, the 10 communications system, even though the City has a different 11 frequency, we still have, you know, the same -- radio 12 antennas and that would still be the same. The -- the new 13 equipment that the County will have has the capability -- 14 and it's all a touch screen console-type deal, where all the 15 screens -- we currently have two consoles in there, and what 16 I'd recommend is the City have two consoles. All the 17 screens are set up identical; everybody's trained the same, 18 okay? And all you have to do is touch K.P.D. icon on the 19 screen and you're talking to P.D. You know, touch K.C.S.O. 20 icon, you're talking to K.C.S.O., with all that equipment 21 that's going to be there for that. They also have the 22 capability, with us having two complete radio channels that 23 we'll have in this new system, that we can interlink up to 24 four agencies at one time by touching the screen. 25 In other words, it doesn't matter if P.D.'s 109 1 on their Channel 2, we're on our Channel 1, okay, Fire 2 Department's on their channel, EMS or even the Highway 3 Department or -- or a lot of those. You can -- you can do 4 it very simply in that new system of just touching it, and 5 everybody can be talking to everybody else without having to 6 change channels, without having to know what's going on for 7 an emergency communication channel, to where if it's during 8 a flood, City Street Department, okay, they have their 9 system. If we program that into that new system, even 10 though they're totally different frequencies, you can still 11 create that patch and talk to them, regardless of what 12 channel everybody's on. So, it's just a communication 13 ability that would be enhanced for everybody in Kerr County. 14 I think it's worthwhile looking at. 15 MR. LAUGHLIN: Yeah, just -- if I can put in 16 two cents, having worked in a city where we did this, and 17 having a written agreement between a city and county 18 previously, ten years ago, when we did it in Midland County 19 and City of Midland, it works real well. And one of the key 20 things is, first of all, having the cooperation of the -- of 21 all the chiefs that are participating, which we certainly 22 seem to have here. 23 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: We just pretend. 24 MR. LAUGHLIN: And, you know, the 25 transitioning -- I mean, the one thing that really worked 110 1 out was bringing in the fire dispatchers, bringing in the 2 county dispatchers, and in that particular instance they all 3 became city -- city employees, because in that case, the 4 benefits were pretty comparable. We may have had to do some 5 pay adjustments, actually had to bring some of the county 6 folks up a little bit in that particular instance, but over 7 time, everybody got cross-trained so that everybody was 8 dispatching for everybody, you know, so it didn't matter. 9 So, you went -- you were a city employee, but you were 10 dispatching for the sheriff, you're dispatching fire, 11 dispatching police. And, in that case, we were dispatching 12 the -- the guys -- I forgot the agency that does the cattle 13 rustlers out in the west Texas ranches, what-have-you. And 14 it worked out real well. Now, the only other thing that 15 they did that went beyond that was they ultimately turned it 16 into a civilian department, so that no longer were they 17 attached to a particular law enforcement or public service 18 entity, but they were a civilian department within the city 19 in that particular instance. And -- but the head of that 20 department was constantly reviewing and meeting with the 21 different chiefs to make sure the protocols were all 22 followed, response times were working, working through 23 problems, and it worked out real well. So, this is -- you 24 know -- 25 MR. DICKERSON: I know I've talked with some 111 1 chiefs and sheriffs that have done -- that have combined and 2 split back up because of problems between agencies, and I 3 don't anticipate that happening with me and Rusty. I just 4 don't. A lot of that has to do with your policies and 5 procedures and how you're going to work out protocol and 6 stuff, and once you get that all ironed out, you shouldn't 7 have these little nitpicking problems that's caused in other 8 agencies. 9 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, are you all going to 10 work up a proposal to -- I mean, we'll -- here's how we want 11 to do it, and get it to us? 12 MR. DICKERSON: I'd like to try to do 13 something by the time, you know, this budget session comes 14 up, April, somewhere around there, you know. 15 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: The next time we see 16 them, they may be fistfighting. 17 MR. DICKERSON: May be sitting across the 18 room. 19 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll sit in the back. 20 MR. LAUGHLIN: Actually, it will be the 21 dispatchers saying who's going to work for who? 22 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: What's really nice -- 23 'cause there's an intercom back and forth now, okay? 24 MR. LAUGHLIN: Is there? 25 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: And I think all the 112 1 dispatchers, ours and the city's dispatchers, get along 2 great. They always do, because they are essentially doing 3 the exact same job. They can relate to each other at work. 4 And, like you were saying, you know, the idea is not to have 5 a city dispatcher sitting at this console, worried about the 6 city, with a county dispatcher sitting here, worried about 7 the county. It's more of a deal of having, you know, two or 8 three dispatchers in that room at all times, or maybe up to 9 four, depending on the, you know, call volume that we have, 10 and everybody being cross-trained, knowing exactly what 11 their duties are, and they can sit at any console, or even 12 pull it up from the console they're at and make sure they 13 can dispatch without any kind of separation between whether 14 it's city, county, fire, EMS; it doesn't matter. 15 MR. DICKERSON: Hopefully, we'll have some 16 numbers and stuff to present to both groups, let you know 17 what we'll do. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: Good. 19 MS. SULLIVAN: Fine. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Final item, at least listed, 21 is plans and potential partnerships/funding for the Hill 22 Country Youth Exhibition Center. I'm going to just touch on 23 that real lightly. I think the Commissioners Court has -- 24 has a concept and a direction, but the offer that was 25 vaguely outlined to us by the Lion's Camp has really made us 113 1 kind of pull back, because we need to know what their 2 intentions are. And I'm sure you all know that the Lion's 3 Camp came to us -- when did they come, Jonathan? December? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: December or November. 5 JUDGE HENNEKE: Basically made an offer to 6 make a contribution of some kind or participate in some way, 7 because they have some plans to build a hotel on land 8 immediately outside the -- the Lion's Camp, and they're -- 9 they've done this two or three places around the state where 10 they've built more or less a convention-type motel with 11 meeting rooms, and they've been very successful, because 12 people will come to that in order to use the Lion's Camp 13 facilities. And they came to us and said, we understand you 14 have some plans to possibly build meeting rooms, and we'd 15 like to know what they are. Can we participate in those? 16 Can we build our facility on your land? And so I think we 17 collectively kind of decided we'd pull back a little bit, 18 wait and see what they have in mind. 19 I've talked to Steve Mabry, and their board 20 is meeting in February, and until after that board meeting, 21 he's really not in a position to sit down and talk with us 22 about what they have in mind. But, at this point, I think 23 just -- what we'd like to do to you all is to just pose the 24 question, without necessarily wanting an answer at this 25 time, in what form or fashion, if any, do you want to 114 1 participate in this project? Do we want to think along the 2 lines of an airport-type project? Or Animal Control, where 3 we jointly own and operate and participate in a facility? 4 Do y'all have -- would y'all have any interest in making any 5 sort of a contribution of any kind based on the study that 6 indicates that -- you know, that the motel/hotel/restaurant 7 receipts would be enhanced significantly by the facility 8 that's successful? We don't have a concept. We don't have 9 a position, but all we want to do is say if y'all want to be 10 involved, certainly in an ownership/management capacity, we 11 want you involved in the beginning, as opposed to further 12 down the road, 'cause we don't want to -- if you're going to 13 do that, we need you as partners as opposed to someone who 14 simply signs on at the last minute. So, I think that's all 15 I want to lay out on this -- this topic right now. Anybody 16 have any -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the only thing 18 I'd add to that is that -- and I think I probably visited 19 with a number of the City Council on this project, or doing 20 something out there; looked at lots of different plans. 21 It's certainly been in the press a lot. But one of the 22 things I hear a lot from the -- in the community is that, is 23 the City going to participate? Or, what's the City doing? 24 I think in the community, there's a -- you know, a thought 25 process, a desire, whatever you want to call it, that 115 1 whatever's done out there, we should do it together in some 2 fashion. And I think when they see it as a -- a city/county 3 facility, both benefit from it. And I just -- you know, and 4 I'll just kind of leave it at that. 5 I think we've -- wherever we go out there, 6 clearly, in our mind -- or at least my mind, it has to stay 7 primarily an ag facility, or that has to be a big component 8 of whatever we do. That's the purpose of that facility, is 9 youth and ag. But it can be expanded beyond that. We 10 certainly, in all of our planning of different ideas out 11 there, have included people from -- from the city and 12 Chamber of Commerce; Sudie and all kinds of people have been 13 involved in it, and have kind of, I guess, represented the 14 city as to what you may or may not want out there. So, 15 that's mainly the main thing, is just to think about 16 participation at some level. I think it makes sense, but 17 until we can come up with a definite plan -- and we thought 18 we were going to be at that point a year ago, but in 19 November it all got delayed again, and I think for a good 20 reason. I think if we can get another partner, be it a 21 Lion's Camp -- and their design, their participation is 22 financial, serious financial, so that's a big help to both 23 of us, or certainly to us. 24 MAYOR FINE: Well, I think, number one, I've 25 heard just the opposite when people have talked to me. It's 116 1 a county facility; they don't want the city involved. Of 2 course, they're not going to tell me what they're telling 3 you, and they probably wouldn't tell you what they're 4 telling me, just because of who they're talking to. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 MAYOR FINE: And this project kind of has 7 been a moving target, I mean, since it's been -- was first 8 introduced a year or two ago. So, you know, until something 9 were more solid, I mean, you -- just like you just said, 10 really, it would be kind of hard for us to say at what level 11 we would want to participate, and how. In the past, you 12 know, we've kept our nose out of that one, or tried our best 13 to. Now, we've -- we've done things like providing the 14 sewer and the -- that type of thing to the facility, but 15 other than that, really haven't done much else. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Stephen, in terms of 17 a moving target, it has been a moving target in terms of its 18 design and scope, but what's in your workbook -- or our 19 workbooks tonight is the revised -- the revision of the 20 scaled-back version, which we think is economically more 21 palatable, and it certainly is just as functional and cuts 22 out a lot of frills, so about 25 percent of the original 23 cost -- right, Jon? 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- of the first plan 117 1 we unveiled has gone away. So -- and that -- in that sense, 2 the target is now pretty stationary in terms of the scope of 3 the project. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The plan hasn't changed 5 from the beginning. The facility hasn't changed. What 6 we've done, basically, we had a master plan that a 7 community-wide group put together. That was what was shown, 8 and there was a lot of criticism that it was too much, too 9 quick. And we looked -- we just scaled it back, and there's 10 Phase II, III, IV, V, whatever you want to call it, to get 11 it back to the same original facility. And it was just kind 12 of -- it was cut back in a way that it could be added on -- 13 added onto if the other portions were ever needed in the 14 future. But, for those that look, it's basically the same 15 design as we had two years ago. 16 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think there's 17 another thing that we can probably ask for your help on, and 18 that is sort of a vision, without even attaching the dollars 19 to it, necessarily, at first. But, you know, it would be a 20 facility -- it will always be a facility that is really a 21 regional facility, and it's -- it affects and benefits both 22 the city and the county, obviously. But what, in your way 23 of thinking -- I'm not looking for an answer now, but what, 24 in your way of thinking, what should it be? What should it 25 be like? Is there something that could make this plan even 118 1 better, maybe for less money? Or whatever. But, I mean, I 2 think that the vision of what the facility should end up as 3 can help us as well, 'cause that's still going to be 4 developed over the next months and years until we actually 5 start to drive a nail into the plan and say here's what 6 we're really going to do. So, I think this -- helping us 7 with that piece of it could be very important. 8 MAYOR FINE: Well, the need for a convention 9 center is obvious. I mean -- 10 MS. SULLIVAN: It is. 11 MAYOR FINE: -- every hotel that's ever been 12 around here talks about it. I don't think there's any doubt 13 that a convention center facility of some sort is needed. 14 Whether, you know, we do it or you do it or Lion's Camp does 15 it or one of the hotels moving into the area does it. I 16 mean, if they're even discussing it, that shows there's a 17 need for it. They recognize it in the private sector also. 18 And I think one of the things I've heard -- comments to me, 19 anyway -- is trying to hold a convention in the same 20 facility that you held a shock show in the week before is 21 difficult, if it's an enclosed convention-type deal, because 22 the current facility doesn't lend itself well to that. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: This new plan doesn't 24 embody that at all. 25 MAYOR FINE: I'm just saying, that's -- 119 1 they're things that were brought up to me. Like during the 2 County Fair when they had booths out there, everyone's 3 covered in dust and you can't breathe and that type of 4 thing. It works good for what it -- for its purpose, but 5 that's one of the concerns that's been brought to me. The 6 need for that, I don't -- I don't think anyone in this 7 room's going to argue about that. As far as our 8 participation, I think a lot of it really is going to come 9 down to dollars and cents. We just undertook a $15 million 10 bond issue the other day. We don't have money laying around 11 to jump into bed on something like this. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: We don't either. 13 MAYOR FINE: Right now. And -- and I think 14 it's -- you know, if it's going to happen, I think it's 15 something that should definitely be a community-wide 16 project, you know. The voters have a say on it, if they 17 want it, if they want to spend the money on it. 18 JUDGE HENNEKE: A project of this size has to 19 go to the voters. We will not do this on C.O.'s, because 20 this is not a core government function. 21 MAYOR FINE: Right. 22 JUDGE HENNEKE: But we have to do something 23 out there in the next two years time frame, because the 24 facility is no longer -- or barely functional at this time. 25 MAYOR FINE: Yeah. 120 1 JUDGE HENNEKE: And the dollars simply to 2 keep it going are of the magnitude that it's hard to do out 3 of the typical O & M. I mean, like replacing the 4 air-conditioners. All of the air conditioners out there are 5 20, 25 years old; they barely move the air now. We get 6 people out there, they look at replacing the air 7 conditioners. They say, well, it will cost $49,000 to 8 replace the air-conditioners, but first you have to rewire 9 the building, because it's -- the wire's not to code. And 10 so you -- it's a rolling target simply to keep the building 11 going the way it is now. And, is that even good -- you 12 know, good management? I think we're going to have to do 13 something out there. I think the Court is committed to 14 doing something. This is the plan that we've got now, 15 because it enhances the facility and provides additional 16 capabilities. Kind of our benchmark is the Junior District 17 Livestock show, and this plan here gives them the capability 18 not only to continue what they're doing now, but to expand. 19 So we're going to continue going on. At some point we'll 20 have to make a decision to go on. What we're offering to 21 you all, if you're interested -- and, truly, it's an 22 offer -- is to get involved in the planning now and be part 23 of the process from the beginning, because this has got a 24 momentum we can't hold up too much longer. If we're going 25 to take this to a bond, we'll take it, I think, within a 121 1 year, year and a half at the most. 2 MAYOR FINE: Well, from the city -- on the 3 financial standpoint, we haven't had a tax increase in five 4 years. We've got one coming in a couple years now because 5 of the bond we just passed, about 2.93 cents. And we've 6 been able to keep the city functions going based within our 7 expanding of our economic base and increase in value, that 8 we've been able to stay within those boundaries. We have 9 enough -- I say enough. We have a lot of things we offer. 10 We have an extensive park system. Parks don't make money. 11 We sink a lot of money into those things every year. The 12 auditorium was a big money pit for a long time, and luckily, 13 you know, that's been alleviated right now, but eventually 14 -- you know, that thing will never make money. It will 15 never pay its own way. We have a golf course that, you 16 know, it -- it barely pays its own way, you know. And we 17 just sunk a million and a half bucks into that thing. And, 18 from the standpoint of taking on something else that we know 19 is going to be a financial drain, I don't know if 20 financially the City can do it. Because, I mean, this 21 facility won't make money either, and it's going to take 22 some serious soul-searching on the part of Council as to 23 whether or not they want to take on something like that 24 that's going to continue to be a financial drain when we've 25 already got all these other things we're offering that are 122 1 already financial drains. 2 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we understand that; 3 we're in the financial drain business, too. We're all in 4 the business of managing scarce resources. If you have 5 something that breaks even, you're doing better than we are. 6 We're going to go ahead with this, you know. If y'all want 7 to -- if you want to have an ownership/partnership 8 arrangement, then we really need you to let us know that, 9 and to get actively involved in a short time frame, because 10 we're going to go ahead. And we're going to get to a point 11 where we're going to have our plan set, going to go forward, 12 and then if you decide you want to be in an 13 ownership/partnership role, you're going to have to buy into 14 what we've done, 'cause we're not going to back up. 15 MAYOR FINE: Yeah. I doubt that one would 16 happen. If the City didn't buy in from the beginning, they 17 probably wouldn't come back in later wanting to ride the 18 coattails. I just don't think that's feasible. That would 19 be like y'all trying to jump on board the golf course now 20 that it's finished. 21 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Oh, hey, that's -- can 22 we add that to the agenda? 23 MAYOR FINE: Right. And I'm just -- I 24 just -- what I'm getting at, you know, it's -- if it's 25 something that, you know, the figures come in, and we think 123 1 of something that we can -- because the burden would 2 ultimately go right back on the taxpayers, and it's 3 something I know we can't absorb now. 4 JUDGE HENNEKE: Right. 5 MAYOR FINE: We just -- we can't do it. 6 There would have to be some form of tax increase or 7 something on our part to make this happen on an ongoing 8 basis. And it's just a matter of whether or not Council 9 sees that as something they want to undertake. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I just wanted to add 11 one thing, Stephen. The point you made originally about the 12 multiple uses and how the current facility does not lend 13 itself to -- 14 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- some multiple 16 uses. I commend to you Page 24, where it shows the 17 Livestock Show laid out, and there's nothing laid out in the 18 Exhibit Hall. So, you don't have -- don't have to sit down 19 to dinner behind the swine show. 20 MAYOR FINE: Yeah, and that's good. I mean, 21 I understand. 22 MS. SULLIVAN: Where was that? 23 MAYOR FINE: 24. 24 MS. SULLIVAN: Okay. 25 MAYOR FINE: Obviously, if there was a hotel 124 1 that put in a convention center, they probably wouldn't hold 2 a livestock show in their facility, either. It wouldn't 3 work the other way. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Absolutely not. 5 MAYOR FINE: And we're not going to argue 6 that facility would -- 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, I just wanted to 8 point out -- 9 MAYOR FINE: Parts of it have been there for 10 a long time, but it's also served this community very well 11 for a long time. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sure. 13 MAYOR FINE: And I think it's a commendable 14 project; I think there's some of this stuff that probably 15 should have been done a long time ago. And, you know, 16 whether you guys do it or a hotel comes in and builds it, or 17 Lion's Camp or whoever's going to do it -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Or a partnership, 19 public/private partnership. 20 MAYOR FINE: -- partnership between whichever 21 groups, it's going to happen. Sudie's -- we've heard Sudie 22 speak to it, and we've heard Sherry's speech, and -- and, 23 you know, the same thing it always boils down to in those 24 conversations, I agree, how are we going to pay for it? 25 And, you know, it's easy to say we need it. It's hard to 125 1 say how we're going to pay for it, and that's where the 2 conversation usually ends. And that's why the private 3 sector hasn't done it. If you could make money at it, 4 somebody in this community would have already done it. 5 So -- but it's -- it's a matter of who the burden is going 6 to be put on to make it happen. 7 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: Good. 8 MAYOR FINE: So, in other words, I didn't say 9 no, but I didn't say yes. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Everybody else was real 11 quiet over there. 12 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else? 13 MAYOR FINE: Do y'all have anything else? 14 Did I say too much or too little, or -- 15 MS. BANKS: No. No. 16 MS. SULLIVAN: No. 17 MR. WAMPLER: I guess the question -- and 18 we've kind of talked around it and really kind of answered 19 it through the discussion, but I guess really the question, 20 to get down to the core issue, is the invitation to 21 participate primarily motivated by the financing of the 22 facility? In other words, what -- I mean, why would it be 23 desirous of -- you know, of the Commissioners of the county 24 for the City to participate in any way? 25 JUDGE HENNEKE: Because we think it's a 126 1 community-wide project. Why -- why would the County 2 Commissioners want to participate in an airport 50 years 3 ago? Because it was a community-wide project. It was 4 something to enhance the whole community. We don't claim to 5 have all the answers. We think there's an opportunity there 6 for everyone to enhance what we have here. I think that's 7 the whole purpose. It's how we're going to move forward. I 8 think if the City participates, there's a different dynamic 9 as to the use and structure of the facility, perhaps, than 10 there is if the County does it on our own. 11 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: I think the design 12 would be different. 13 JUDGE HENNEKE: Could possibly be different. 14 The Lion's Camp, the people who have come to us -- I should 15 have mentioned this earlier -- with the proposal for funding 16 say if we fund a significant portion, we want a management 17 contract, which indicates that they think that, either 18 stand-alone or in conjunction with their hotel, that that's 19 an economic opportunity. 20 MAYOR FINE: I think if the City 21 participated, we'd want sort of a management contract, too. 22 I mean, you'd have to -- 23 JUDGE HENNEKE: Yeah. 24 MAYOR FINE: You know, it would have to be 25 under someone's control, someone who had control of that 127 1 facility. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think, going back to 3 David's question, another reason for the City participation 4 is the City is clearly more interested in the convention 5 side of that -- 6 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- than the ag side of 8 that. 9 MS. SULLIVAN: Right. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And it is a way to get -- 11 for the City, as I see it, to get a convention facility, 12 possibly, that may not be as great as they would have liked, 13 but it's a heck of a lot better than they have a chance of 14 getting any other way. And it's a way -- because there 15 is -- at least the land's paid for. The parking is there. 16 I mean, and at a minimum, you're -- and the County's 17 certainly willing to pay for part of the structure of the 18 convention side of it. So, I think the -- if the City is 19 going to do a convention center anytime in the next five or 20 ten years, it is probably the most economic way for the City 21 to get that done, is to join the County together to get it 22 done. 23 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: That's the reason I 24 say it could potentially affect the design, because if we -- 25 if we were in partnership, then, you know, your input to 128 1 this may be, hey, you know, the convention facility ought to 2 really be done this way, because this is the way we would 3 prefer to have it. So, you buck that up a little bit. And 4 so you -- it could affect the planning as well as -- as well 5 as the execution of the project. 6 JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase I has an Exhibit Hall. 7 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 8 JUDGE HENNEKE: Phase II has covered space. 9 MAYOR FINE: Right. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: If you finish the covered 11 space, you air-condition it, wall it, bring utilities to it 12 for about $250,000, and you've added approximately 100,000 13 square feet of exhibit space, which then the exhibit hall 14 becomes not a banquet facility, but a small convention 15 facility. 16 MAYOR FINE: I have no -- I'm not disagreeing 17 that the potential is there. I mean, the plans are there, 18 and I don't -- 'cause I don't think it would really be a 19 whole lot different, to tell you the truth. You guys have 20 done a lot of work on it. You've brought in the right 21 people to do the plans, and I don't think the input of five 22 of us and probably staff would change those a whole lot. 23 Because, I mean, the -- with the City being involved, I 24 don't see where the City -- quote, unquote, the City of 25 Kerrville's going to bring in any more particular 129 1 conventions than we would if you guys owned it. I don't 2 think that would change a whole lot. I mean, I -- and the 3 use of the facility I don't think would change dramatically 4 if we were involved, one way or the other, if we were or if 5 we weren't. I don't think the focus of that facility will 6 change. And I think as people find -- if the convention 7 center portion is in there, I think it will catch on, and it 8 will -- people will want -- people already want to come to 9 Kerrville for their meetings, and they can't; we don't have 10 the facilities. I mean, Sudie can tell you how much 11 business we're losing a year. We don't have a place to put 12 them. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The key to success is 14 in its management. 15 MAYOR FINE: Yeah, no argument. No argument 16 there. 17 JUDGE HENNEKE: Well, we -- we extend the 18 offer. And, you know, if y'all are interested, let us know. 19 If not, we'll -- we know you'll give us your support and 20 encouragement as we move forward. 21 MAYOR FINE: Yeah. It's going to take some 22 serious soul-searching on the members of Council as to the 23 burden that we've just recently placed on them as of Monday 24 night; you know, how much more we want to put on them at 25 this point, on top of what we've put on them the last few 130 1 years. I mean, I look at my taxes at the medical center. 2 Luckily, it's not all mine, but -- but they've gone up 3 50 percent in the last three years due to increase in value, 4 increase in taxes, and that's a hard -- I was telling Dane 5 earlier, damn, it was hard to write that check today. But, 6 you know, you got to do it. And it's -- you know, more 7 beds -- or heads than beds aren't going to help my medical 8 center very much, but it will bring more people to 9 Kerrville, and ultimately helps the doctors, and it does 10 benefit me in a roundabout way. So, like I say, it's just 11 going to take some soul-searching on the part of Council as 12 to how they feel about how we can participate and at what 13 level. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: As a County 15 Commissioner who dwells in the city, I do want to commend 16 you for what you've done. Your $15 million issue of 17 certificates, I think, is a beautiful step forward. 18 MS. SULLIVAN: It's a lot of water and 19 wastewater stuff. 20 JUDGE HENNEKE: Looks like the kind of nuts 21 and bolts that we never get any credit for as public 22 servants, but really that's our charge. 23 MAYOR FINE: It will allow us to grow. 24 MS. SULLIVAN: Yes. 25 MAYOR FINE: If we don't use it, it's there, 131 1 but if we do need to grow, it will already be in the ground, 2 ready to be used. And, plus we'll still be able to flush 3 our toilets once we get that replaced. 4 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: No way to put a moat 5 around the county. I don't think we can stop the growth. 6 MAYOR FINE: No. 7 MS. SULLIVAN: I don't -- 8 COMMISSIONER GRIFFIN: We can manage it, but 9 we can't stop it. 10 JUDGE HENNEKE: Anything else from anyone? 11 If not, we're adjourned, and we thank everybody. 12 MAYOR FINE: Thank you guys for your 13 hospitality. 14 (Joint Commissioners Court and City Council meeting adjourned at 9:22 p.m.) 15 - - - - - - - - - - 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 132 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 7th day of February, 8 2002. 9 10 11 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 12 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 13 Certified Shorthand Reporter 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25