1 2 3 4 5 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 6 and 7 KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL 8 Joint Workshop 9 Monday, August 6, 2007 10 8:00 a.m. 11 Kerrville Public Utility Meeting Room 12 2250 Memorial Boulevard 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 Kerr County Commissioners Court: 18 PRESENT: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 19 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 20 ABSENT: H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 21 Kerrville City Council: 22 PRESENT: EUGENE C. SMITH, Mayor 23 TODD A. BOCK, Mayor Pro Tem MACK HAMILTON, Councilperson, Place 2 24 T. SCOTT GROSS, Councilperson, Place 3 CHUCK COLEMAN, Councilperson, Place 4 25 PAUL HOFMANN, City Manager 2 1 I N D E X August 6, 2007 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Presentation and discussion with City Council and City staff with respect to operation and/or 4 funding of joint City and County projects, including, but not limited to: 5 EMS 3 Fire Department 9 6 Library 30 Airport 43 7 Recycling Center 59 Animal Control 63 8 1.2 Discussion and consideration of other potential 9 cooperative efforts, including, but not limited to: Health Benefits Program 71 10 Road repair/rehabilitation/sealcoating 74 Emergency Services Dispatch 77 11 Airport Governance -- Broadband services 81 12 13 --- Adjourned 106 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Monday, August 6, 2007, at 8:00 a.m., a joint 2 workshop of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and Kerrville 3 City Council was held at the Kerrville Public Utility Meeting 4 Room, 2250 Memorial Boulevard, Kerrville, Texas, and the 5 following proceedings were had: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. 8 Let me call to order this joint meeting of the Kerr County 9 Commissioners Court and Kerrville City Council. It's a joint 10 workshop to discuss various joint projects scheduled and 11 posted for this time and date, Monday, August 6th, 2007, at 12 8 a.m., here at the KPUB Board meeting room. Mr. Mayor, do 13 you want to go ahead and call your agenda? 14 MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, I want to call to order the 15 Kerrville City Council at a joint budget meeting with Kerr 16 County, at -- well, it's 8:15 a.m. on August 6th. We're now 17 in order. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the agendas are somewhat 19 similar. Discussion between the two bodies with respect to 20 operation and/or funding of joint City/County projects, 21 including, but not limited to, EMS, Fire Department, Library, 22 Recycling Center, Animal Control, and Airport. I've listed 23 EMS first. If you've got no objection, that's as good a place 24 as any to start, isn't it, Mr. Mayor? 25 MAYOR SMITH: Good place to start. Paul, do you 8-6-07 jwk 4 1 want to start that presentation on the behalf of the City? 2 MR. HOFMANN: Sure. Certainly, if that's okay. I 3 don't have a lot to update. Commissioners and Mayor and 4 Council, you recall from our last retreat that was in March, 5 Chief Holloway and Eric Maloney talked you through how we 6 would be approaching our recommended cost allocation for 7 Fiscal 2007. At that meeting -- I think actually at the 8 meeting before that, there was some discussion about the idea 9 of increasing the EMS rates. We have built a budget that 10 follows the recommendations from both bodies about increasing 11 the rates, and the City's Fiscal '07 budget assumes that. We 12 took the very same approach to suggesting a cost allocation 13 between the County and the City as we took for Fiscal '07, and 14 we're happy to answer any questions you have about the 15 recommended base budget for EMS operations, what that rate 16 increase is all about, what the additional revenues are all 17 about. Judge Tinley, there was a slight error in the 18 July 13th letter that I sent to you, but not in what we are 19 suggesting is the allocation for Fiscal '08. The Fiscal '08 20 allocation that we have included in our budget is $220,335, 21 and Mayor and Councilmen, that's what the budget I recommended 22 to you assumes. And, so, if there's any questions, we're 23 happy to try to answer. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: I think every member of the Court has 25 a copy of that July 13th letter from the City Manager, don't 8-6-07 jwk 5 1 you? 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes, sir. 4 MR. HOFMANN: The rate -- the amount of contribution 5 actually went down a bit, and that's primarily because of the 6 rate increase. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What's the status of bad 8 debt collections this year versus a year ago when we discussed 9 this? 10 MR. HOFMANN: Chief, can -- Mark or Eric -- 11 MR. HOLLOWAY: Eric's out of here. Let me try to 12 get over here. Our bad debt collection is a little better 13 than it was this time last year. Unfortunately, the numbers 14 are larger, because -- and we project the numbers will be 15 larger with the rate increase, but we don't know; we don't 16 have a history on that yet, based on, you know, what we're 17 proposing the new increase to the rates will be. But with -- 18 as far as our -- the company that we contract for bad debt, 19 they're -- they're doing a pretty good job for us right now. 20 I can't give you a percentage on that based on what the 21 proposed rates will be. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: How much will the new rates 23 bring in new revenue? How much new revenue? 24 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, we're estimating it's going to 25 increase by about $75,000. 8-6-07 jwk 6 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How much have the new rates 2 increased over the previous? 3 MR. HOLLOWAY: Pardon? I didn't hear that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: He didn't hear you. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You didn't hear me? 6 MR. HOLLOWAY: No, sir. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: How much are your new rates -- 8 how much have they increased over the ones that you had 9 originally, prior year? 10 MR. HOLLOWAY: I don't have that figure with me 11 right now. They've gone up -- 100 percent of what the 12 Medicare will allow, and that -- that varies on different 13 ones. And, actually, our -- our B.L.S. charge went down a 14 little bit, but A L.S. went up. Our mileage has gone up from 15 $9 to, I think, $12 a mile. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Was any effort made to try and 17 determine the population in the areas that -- there's one area 18 that's been carved out in far northwest Kerr in the Y.O. area. 19 The primary response is going to Junction, and there's an 20 arrangement -- I don't -- has it been finalized yet, Jon? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We're still working on it. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Eric and I are going through 24 another final draft version on the Comfort area. And it's -- 25 the -- Kendall County wants the City of Kerrville to be a 8-6-07 jwk 7 1 party to the agreement, and originally City of Kerrville 2 didn't want to be part of the agreement. They felt they 3 worked with the County; the County worked with Kendall County, 4 and we're going through that to see -- you know, and I think 5 the recommendation that Eric and I are probably -- talked to 6 the Chief about it. It'll probably come back to the City of 7 Kerrville. The City will be a party to it from the standpoint 8 of protocol more than from the standpoint of the agreement, as 9 to -- it -- you know, it's hard to separate it all. Kendall 10 County has one point of view; we had a different point of 11 view, and it seemed easier to go to their -- it didn't seem to 12 hurt anything, in my mind, to go to -- Kendall County wanted 13 to have all three entities to sign the agreement. But I don't 14 think that's gotten back to the -- you know, draft version 15 back to the Chief or to Mike Hayes yet. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, my question relates to the 17 population figures. I think these allocations are based 18 primarily on population. And -- 19 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, the area in west Kerr County, 20 we don't -- we're not including that in the estimate. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: And -- Eric? When we -- Falling 23 Waters is still in the population that we're projecting in 24 this? 25 MR. MALONEY: Yes. 8-6-07 jwk 8 1 MR. HOLLOWAY: We haven't taken those out yet, 2 because it's still part of Kerr County. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 MR. HOLLOWAY: And that -- what, about 100 people in 5 that area? 6 MR. MALONEY: Yes, sir. And we still have the 7 capacity to respond to an emergency. 8 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, plus we still will respond, 9 because Kendall County -- you know, Comfort only has one 10 ambulance, and if they're on another call, we will have to 11 still respond to that area, and that's another reason we 12 didn't take those numbers out. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: Because chances are that we'll be 15 responding out there at least half the time. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. But there was an adjustment 17 for population in the Y.O. area? 18 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yes, that's correct. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, good. Thank you. Anything 20 else on that particular item? I think that may be -- what, is 21 that the one good news item, Paul? 22 MR. HOFMANN: No. No, sir, there's good news all 23 over this agenda. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, one further question, 8-6-07 jwk 9 1 Judge. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Paul, did you say that our 4 contribution is going down? 5 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir. 6 MR. HOLLOWAY: It went from 230 this year to 220 7 next year. 8 MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Williams, there's a typo in that 9 July 13th memo. 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that the one you're 11 referring to, where it says that it's increasing? 12 MR. HOFMANN: The '07 contribution is misstated. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 14 MR. HOFMANN: The '07 contribution is about 235, 15 right? 231? 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Sounds about right. Okay. Are we 17 down to Fire? 18 MAYOR SMITH: Fire is right next. Paul, do you want 19 to keep Raymond up on the floor there for this? 20 MR. HOFMANN: Sure. We didn't change the formula. 21 We didn't change the allocation formula that we've been 22 talking with the County Commissioners about for quite a while 23 now. According to that formula -- and we can talk about that 24 if we need to -- the actual County contribution would be about 25 $395,000. That is significantly higher than what the 8-6-07 jwk 10 1 contribution has been, and so what we're suggesting is an 2 increase of about $50,000 from the current $125,000 amount to 3 the $175,000 amount. And that's -- Mayor and Councilmen, 4 that's what your recommended budget assumes. 5 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah, the last time the contract was 6 increased was in 2003. It hasn't been increased since then 7 for fire protection. During that same period of time, the 8 county population has probably increased by close to 1,000, 9 and we -- due to, you know, costs of everything has gone up, 10 fuel costs and cost of operating the business, and the 11 increase in calls that we've made to the county, we feel like 12 it's a good adjustment just to go to the 175. We talked about 13 this, I believe, in March a little bit also. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Your addition of a fourth fire 15 station, Chief Holloway, you think will give us additional 16 coverage, particularly on the north side? That'll make 17 additional equipment available to us? 18 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, not -- it won't actually give 19 you more equipment. It'll make our response a little bit 20 quicker. I mean, we'll still send one fire truck, no matter 21 where they're located. If it's on our side of town, we'll be 22 able to get there a little bit quicker. 23 MR. HOFMANN: Just as a quick reminder for the 24 County Commissioners, the way we allocate those costs is we're 25 assuming -- we're breaking out the cost of one truck. So, we 8-6-07 jwk 11 1 are adding Fire Station 4, and that is increasing the City's 2 cost, but we're not asking -- that's -- the fact that we're 3 building and equipping Fire Station 4 really has nothing to do 4 with how we calculate what we think is a fair contribution 5 from the County. If the deal is we send one truck, what we're 6 allocating is the cost of one truck. 7 MR. HOLLOWAY: And the crew. 8 MR. HOFMANN: And I'm -- when I say one truck, 9 that's a bit short. It is the costs associated with one 10 truck. 11 MR. HOLLOWAY: Yeah. And that doesn't include the 12 -- you know, we're not including the cost of a new truck. You 13 know, that's -- we're still at current cost of what we have in 14 equipment, personnel. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you also take into 16 consideration the times that the volunteer fire departments 17 help the city of Kerrville around the edges of either the ETJ 18 or also within the city limits whenever you have a problem? I 19 know that they do respond and help y'all the way you help us, 20 and I think that has some bearing on -- on you, and I just -- 21 you know, they have more than just one truck and one crew that 22 come to help and assist at times. 23 MR. HOFMANN: Sure. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And I think that needs to be 25 considered. 8-6-07 jwk 12 1 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, can I touch on that, Judge, 2 just a second? We agree that volunteers assist us in our 3 grass and brush fires. We only have one brush truck, and we 4 definitely -- when we have areas in the city limits, we 5 definitely need the volunteers to come in. There are 6 occasions that the volunteers come in when we have a large 7 structure involved and assist us also. But in response to us 8 sending one truck to the county, it's a little misleading, 9 because if it's a -- a brush or a grass fire, we respond with 10 a brush truck, but we also most of the time send a fire truck 11 out there, and the reason we do that is because of limited 12 manpower. We -- we have to send a fire -- the brush truck's 13 at Station 3. When we send the brush truck, we have to send 14 the pumper with them, because we don't have people to man the 15 brush truck, at least two people. Unless it's a long ways 16 outside of the city limits. We also send a pumper anytime 17 there's a -- a possibility of a structure being involved along 18 with the brush fire. So, those are petty much automatic 19 responses anywhere in the county. 20 The -- we changed -- one thing y'all asked us to do 21 is change the name of the Kerrville South area, 'cause it was 22 a little bit misleading, because the Kerrville South area, as 23 the volunteer department area of response, covers a large area 24 to the north of the city also. So, we changed that to the 25 Kerrville first responding area -- fire responding area, and 8-6-07 jwk 13 1 that still encircles that big area, which is completely all 2 the way around the city limits, and a lot larger than the city 3 limits, even. In that area, we send automatic response to 4 either a brush or a grass fire. We don't wait till we get a 5 call. And if it's a structure fire in that area, we -- you 6 know, the contract calls for the fire truck and three people. 7 Well, we send the fire truck. A lot of times we'll send a 8 brush truck, and it's possible for us to have seven or eight 9 guys out there, because we call in off-duty people to assist 10 our people. Now, granted, yeah, if -- if it's a good working 11 fire, we call for volunteers to assist, for -- the main reason 12 is the water supply out there. Most of those areas have a 13 limited amount of water, and our pumpers can only carry so 14 much water, so we call the Road and Bridge crew to bring a 15 tanker out there and volunteers to bring a tanker also. So, 16 you know, we work pretty close together, but we send a lot 17 more equipment into the county than what the contract actually 18 calls for. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Is this increase -- you're 20 projecting or you're asking that -- that our contract be 21 increased by $50,000 this year, and then go up incrementally 22 from there? 23 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, that's our suggestion. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's a 40 percent increase 25 in one year. 8-6-07 jwk 14 1 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, see, that -- like I said, that 2 hasn't been increased in five years. We haven't come to y'all 3 for an increase in that in over five years. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Seems to me like it would make 5 more sense to increase it a little bit each year than it would 6 be to hit us all at one time with a big increase. 7 MR. HOLLOWAY: I agree with you, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't think anybody likes 9 that sort of planning. I sure don't. I mean, I don't want to 10 be hit with those kind of things in my own personal life, and 11 I don't think -- 12 MR. HAMILTON: Unfortunately, in this case you got a 13 reduction on EMS. Add the two together and the increase isn't 14 nearly as large. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But we're going to compare 16 apples and apples. We're going to compare one thing to the 17 next; we're not going to try and mix and match, in my opinion. 18 MR. HAMILTON: I think we're making a mistake when 19 we do that. I think we're much better off to look at a 20 package. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, that's your opinion. 22 MR. HOLLOWAY: Mr. Oehler, if we'd have done that, 23 we would have hit y'all maybe two years before now, and then 24 this year we may be asking for another -- it could have gone 25 up $75,000 over that period of time. And -- and we didn't ask 8-6-07 jwk 15 1 for increases over the last several years, and our costs have 2 gone up quite a bit over that same period of time. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All these costs include 4 administrative costs, too, and not just fire costs? 5 MR. HOFMANN: No, sir, it does not. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't have a real problem with 7 the increase this year. I do have an in -- I'm not going to 8 commit to that size of increase or the -- where the City wants 9 to go, necessarily, without really looking at the number of 10 trucks and service and all of that. I think that has to be 11 looked at. I think we talked about that last time. I mean, I 12 think the increase this year is appropriate. I do agree with 13 Commissioner Oehler; I think it is much better to try to build 14 -- to get a plan where we, you know, kind of stick to it so we 15 don't have these larger increases each year. But at the same 16 time, you want us to -- what's the -- where would the City 17 like us to get in a couple of years? What's the funding 18 level? 19 MR. HOFMANN: We -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 295? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 394. 22 MR. HOFMANN: 394, we think, is a very fair 23 allocation of the costs, all things considered. And we 24 don't -- we don't include any administrative costs in there. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I think -- I mean, I have a 8-6-07 jwk 16 1 hard -- I don't have a hard time getting to 175, but I've got 2 a pretty hard time getting to 395 in current-year dollars for 3 the level of service. And I just think with -- but, you know, 4 I think we need to discuss that more as a -- a plan as to 5 where we want to get, what the service is going to be. 6 MAYOR SMITH: Pardon me, Bruce. Your man seems to 7 be looking in the window. Do you have -- 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: He wants me to unplug that. 9 MAYOR SMITH: I didn't mean to interrupt you, 10 Jonathan. 11 MR. HAMILTON: Jonathan, I agree with that. We need 12 to be looking at this longer term. I think we need to be 13 looking at this as a package, because item-by-item, you can 14 choose and argue. If you look at it long-term and try to come 15 up with some numbers, look at it as a package that establishes 16 the budgeting numbers we're proposing. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know that I -- I don't 18 know that I agree on the package way of looking at it. I 19 think you have to look at it item by item, because the 20 services are very different. We're talking about -- I mean, 21 you know, you can't relate to the library -- you can't say -- 22 well, you know, I can't combine the library and emergency 23 services as one package, to me. Emergency services are a much 24 higher priority to me than the library. So -- I mean, so 25 they're not equal, in my mind. So, I think you have to look 8-6-07 jwk 17 1 at them -- or I have to look at them as, you know, EMS and 2 fire kind of going together. I don't have a real problem with 3 those two. But we start expanding it to other things, the 4 airport and library, some of those are much more 5 discretionary. You know, I can't get that far. But I do 6 think we have -- we tend to eliminate issues between the two 7 entities when we can get more of a long-range plan, and I 8 think we've done that in some areas. I think we're moving 9 that way in the library, airport, and I think we hit it here. 10 Certainly, it serves both our interests. But, like I say, 11 this year I don't have a problem with that increase; I think 12 that is justified. But I'm going to really have to understand 13 more about how you get to the 394 number. 14 MR. COLEMAN: To me, each one of these allocations 15 is cost-sharing. Each one of them needs to be based on a 16 good, solid method of estimating what that cost is, some kind 17 of science applied to it, which we haven't, I think, had in 18 the past. And I think it's very good that we've moved in the 19 direction that we have. I think it's logical to use this one 20 truck scenario, because we have to dedicate a truck to be able 21 to do that. If there's a better way to do -- to estimate, 22 especially for the fire, for long-term, I don't have a problem 23 with that. Maybe we start tracking the number of responses 24 and actual costs on that, and try to develop an overall cost 25 per response that we might be able to charge in the future. 8-6-07 jwk 18 1 MR. HOFMANN: We can certainly look at that. It 2 wouldn't be my suggestion that -- and it never has been. 3 We've been talking about this cost allocation model for over a 4 year now, and -- and I would suggest to the Mayor and Council 5 that we don't allocate our costs to city residents based upon 6 number of responses. You don't do it that way, and I wouldn't 7 suggest it would make sense to do it that way to allocate it 8 to the County either. But what you're paying for -- what the 9 citizens of Kerrville are paying for, arguably twice, what the 10 citizens of Kerrville are playing for is building a system 11 with capacity in it. And we -- and it's what you've said 12 earlier; we have to have a certain amount of capacity in order 13 to serve our service area and the contractual service area 14 outside of the city. And to me, it makes the most sense in 15 explaining this to Joe Citizen that you base it on the system 16 capacity costs, not -- not the number of runs or the length of 17 the runs. And I don't know any system that bases it on that. 18 You don't want a fire service for which your costs are 19 recovered on a fee-based cost basis on number of runs or the 20 length of the runs. That's just not the way that works. If 21 it were the way it works, it would look significantly 22 different than the way it works right now. You're building a 23 capacity, and you need to allocate the capacity costs. 24 MR. COLEMAN: Paul, maybe that is not a good way to 25 do it. I -- I'll withdraw that. But if we had -- if we have 8-6-07 jwk 19 1 a good, sound, logical way of allocating these costs, if we do 2 it in a different manner that's equally sound and logical, 3 they're going to yield the same result. 4 MR. HOFMANN: Sure. 5 MR. COLEMAN: Or they're going to begin to cluster. 6 MR. HOFMANN: We've published that method, and if 7 there's a discussion we need to have about allocating the 8 costs of one truck and then allocating that on a per capita 9 basis, if that logic doesn't work, then let's rethink it. And 10 I -- again, we -- we came up with a number, and what we're 11 actually asking for this fiscal year is significantly less 12 than that. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: With respect to the fire service, I 14 read with some interest a story here just within the past few 15 days that the addition of this new fire station is going to 16 cause a significant reduction in -- I guess it's the key rate, 17 the casualty insurance rate that homeowners pay to their 18 insurance company by virtue of the rating given in a 19 particular area. Are the -- are the homeowners in Kerr County 20 going to benefit from any rate reduction as a result of this 21 additional fire station that is going to be coming online 22 fairly soon? 23 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, I can't really speak for what's 24 going to happen in the county. I do know it'll be an 25 8 percent reduction for homeowners and business owners inside 8-6-07 jwk 20 1 the city limits if we get our ISO rating down to a 2; we're 2 currently a 3. When we went from a 4 to a 3, there were a 3 couple of people in the surrounding areas of the city limits 4 that were within 5 miles or somewhere in that area of the fire 5 station; they did get a slight reduction in their insurance. 6 So, it's possible that some of the county residents will get a 7 reduction in their insurance. It won't be the full 8 percent 8 like the City will. It may be a 1 or 2 percent reduction. 9 But, you know, I can't -- the insurance companies would have 10 to answer that. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably be those that are -- that 12 are closer in proximity to the location of the new fire 13 station? 14 MR. HOLLOWAY: Well, any of the fire stations inside 15 the city limits. You know, Station 2 and Station 3 are very 16 close to the city limits lines on both east and west, so it's 17 possible some of those owners -- property owners in those 18 areas could get a reduction. 19 MAYOR SMITH: How about in the ETJ? It should 20 affect the businesses and homeowners in the ETJ. 21 MR. HOLLOWAY: Some of them, I think, will be 22 affected by that, Mr. Mayor. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand the assessment 24 of capacity formula. I'm not certain that I agree with it in 25 its application to the county. But I'm wondering if, based on 8-6-07 jwk 21 1 your capacity formula for determining size and the ability of 2 the fire department, would your capacity requirements diminish 3 if you weren't serving the county? 4 MR. HOFMANN: That's a great question. And probably 5 not significantly. We -- we build a system that is based upon 6 what is sufficient to serve the citizens of Kerrville. And, 7 Commissioner Williams, you make a great point, and it's not a 8 point that's been lost on us. On the one hand, we are 9 providing a service to Kerr County, and we think there ought 10 to be an appropriate cost recovery for that. And, again, we 11 think we've come up with a model that fairly does that. But 12 it -- but it's also fair and true to say that if we weren't 13 providing any service to the county, we would not be able to 14 reduce our -- our operating or capital expenses commensurate 15 with the loss of that service delivery burden. Now, I fully 16 acknowledge that. On the other hand, the way the County, I 17 would think, would look at that is, what would it cost you to 18 replicate that service out in the county if not for the 19 service being provided by the City of Kerrville? But you make 20 a good point. We acknowledge that point. 21 MAYOR SMITH: Perhaps this is a good time to mention 22 this. Every new councilman has a problem with -- they say the 23 county's here and the city's here. Well, the city's in the 24 county. But Mr. Hamilton stated before we -- or asked me 25 before we started, he said he would like to address the -- the 8-6-07 jwk 22 1 city being in the county type situation. I don't know exactly 2 what he wants to say, but he said he wanted to mention 3 something about that. Every new councilman has this problem. 4 And do you want to -- do you want the floor to mention what 5 your concern is? 6 MR. HAMILTON: Let's use the fire truck as a perfect 7 example, $175,000 paid by the County for a fire truck. Half 8 of that $175,000 is paid to the county by city taxpayers. The 9 assessed valuation in the county is about 50/50, city and 10 non-city. So the $175,000 the City is asking from the County 11 for a fire truck, 87,500 is already being paid by city 12 taxpayers, so what the County is getting is at a net cost to 13 non-city taxpayers of $87,500. It gets a fire truck 14 available. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- 16 MR. HAMILTON: Do you understand the logic? 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand the logic, but I 18 think the logic -- what I repeat to virtually everyone in 19 these joint meetings is that virtually 100 percent of the 20 retail sales in this county are in the city limits of 21 Kerrville, and the City of Kerrville -- and which means the 22 county taxpayers are spending dollars in the city limits of 23 Kerrville on a regular basis, 'cause it's the only place to 24 shop to speak of. I mean, really. And the sales tax that 25 comes to the city is far greater than the small percentage 8-6-07 jwk 23 1 that the county gets. It's, like, at least, you know, 2 probably a 30/70 split. So, by that same logic that you're 3 using, the county is funding the, through sales tax, city 4 operations. And I think that you -- and I think you just go 5 down a path on either side that doesn't make -- you don't get 6 anywhere. 7 MR. HAMILTON: Which is why I suggested we need that 8 suggestion to be looking at the package, Jonathan. Knowing 9 that the sales tax will be the response, and therefore, the 10 sales tax needs to be thrown in. Let us -- let us look at the 11 whole thing here. We're making the mistake of negotiating 12 down at one detailed level, and certainly it's worthy of 13 suggestion so we understand it, but we're ignoring the big 14 picture. I'll accept the sales tax for the space of argument. 15 I think it should -- we should be discussing what's a fair 16 allocation of the whole -- whole package. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think you still -- I think we 18 -- you know, I don't think that I'm doing my constituents, 19 city and -- you know, residents and county ones, you know, 20 service if I don't look at it piece by piece. I don't think I 21 can just say -- I can't go to them and say, "Well, I think the 22 county budget should be $22 million, and I'm not going to 23 worry about the details." I can't do that. That's just not 24 the way my mind works, and I don't think -- I have to look at 25 each item, and then you build the budget from the bottom up. 8-6-07 jwk 24 1 That's just the way I have to do it. 2 MR. HAMILTON: If we look at each item, let's put 3 sales tax on the table. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I find a flaw in that 5 argument, Councilman, because there -- if you start examining 6 every -- every issue or every level of service, whether we 7 participate jointly or whether the City provides it or the 8 County uniquely provides it, then you find yourself in a 9 position of -- of analyzing all of the services. If you want 10 to do that, then you have to analyze all the services that the 11 County provides to all people who pay taxes in Kerr County, 12 whether they live in the city or whether they do not, for 13 which the City participates not at all. Let's start with the 14 judicial system. Let's start with the Clerk's office, the 15 District Clerk's office, the Tax Assessor's office, -- 16 MR. HAMILTON: How does the city not -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: -- all of those things. 18 MR. HAMILTON: How does the city not participate? 19 The city taxpayers are paying the same rate the county 20 taxpayers are. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There's no question about 22 that. 23 MR. HAMILTON: They are definitely participating. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 25 MR. HAMILTON: Let us get our facts correct. 8-6-07 jwk 25 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They are participating. I 2 don't think we need to go that route, though, in analyzing 3 them individually that way. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: There are also more people 5 arrested in the city of Kerrville, and the jail is funded 6 totally by total taxpayers, and there's no charge, you know, 7 to the City in any form or fashion that I'm aware of 8 independently for that service. And the jail is a 9 $3 million-a-year deal. Everybody pays for it. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I don't -- I don't see 11 the benefit of going down that road. I mean, the laws are -- 12 the laws are that the county taxpayers as a whole pay for the 13 judicial system. We don't have the ability to allocate -- 14 okay, you know, city residents, you know, this group of 15 citizens are a greater burden on the judicial system, so we're 16 going to tax that segment differently. I mean, it's just -- 17 we don't have that ability to do it, so why even talk about 18 it? You know, we're saddled with judicial and the jail. You 19 know, that's the way it goes. The City has done some things 20 through raising their -- your 4B sales tax and things like 21 that, that you all took the initiative and got it through the 22 city, and that's benefitted the county and the city both. And 23 I think the City has, you know, looked at projects in the 24 county and funded them occasionally. So, I mean, that's -- 25 all that stuff is just -- it's wasting a lot of time talking 8-6-07 jwk 26 1 about it, in my mind. We can't change the state constitution, 2 so we're going to fund what we have to fund by law. And I 3 think every city and every county have the same issues that 4 we're talking about, and it doesn't seem to serve any real 5 purpose, unless we're going to try and get some constitutional 6 amendments, which I don't see would be much help. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good luck with the Legislature. 8 MAYOR SMITH: Well, there's always a lot -- when you 9 have joint operations, there's always a lot of give and take. 10 And I wasn't going to take any position one way or the other 11 with Mr. Hamilton's remarks, 'cause I went through the same 12 thing, but that's -- I've said it ever since I've been on the 13 City Council. We need to have a better understanding and 14 relationship between the city, the county, Headwaters, and 15 U.G.R.A. as to -- we're all in the same boat. Why don't we 16 get -- why don't we solve our problems a little simpler than 17 we seem to do -- get into every year? So, the only thing I 18 would ask is that the Commissioners agree that the city is in 19 the county, period. That's it. As far as I'm concerned, 20 that's the end of my comments on this. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: I think we can stipulate that, 22 Mr. Mayor. 23 MAYOR SMITH: Thank you. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We've got -- if we're over that 25 bridge, let's get on with the next item. 8-6-07 jwk 27 1 MAYOR SMITH: Okay. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: What do you say? 3 MAYOR SMITH: Yes, sir. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have any more issues on the 5 fire that we need to throw out on the table? 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, only that we're 7 agreeing to -- we're going to recommend in our budget 175,000, 8 not 394. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we need to, during the 10 next period, maybe have some discussions as to what a -- I'd 11 like to better understand how the City comes up with the 394 12 number. That seems like a high number to me for one truck, 13 but, you know, I've never looked at y'all's costs. I have no 14 idea. 15 MR. HOLLOWAY: That includes salaries. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And I think that the -- 17 I have no problem with getting in a plan as to where we're 18 going to go in the future. I think that's useful. 19 MR. HOFMANN: We did provide a high-level -- I did 20 it -- cost allocation summary for you, and it didn't make 21 sense. Judge Tinley and Mayor Smith, at next spring's joint 22 meeting, we can make sure we devote more time to that. 23 MAYOR SMITH: This will have to be rehashed. We're 24 not asking for the 394. We're asking for 50. And I'm sure 25 there'll be a few swings next year on how much of the 394 -- 8-6-07 jwk 28 1 or that would be 344 -- needs to be recovered. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, of course, we also have the 3 possibility circumstances may change. 4 MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The fire protection picture could 6 very well change between now and then. So, if things remain 7 static, maybe a phased-in plan is one thing. If things -- if 8 circumstances change, maybe we can either look at something 9 different, but -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, with that kind of money, 11 we can greatly enhance our volunteer fire departments, too, to 12 do some things when we get up to that kind of a level. We 13 could have a -- a deal that responds outside the city. And, 14 you know, that's not necessarily a good idea, I don't think. 15 But, I mean, when you get to that kind of dollars you're 16 looking at, you know, our fire departments don't get anything 17 close to what -- what y'all are asking for in a one-year 18 budget for one truck. So, that's the way I kind of have to 19 look at it from my perspective. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 21 MR. HOFMANN: Well, and for whatever this is worth, 22 I think that's exactly how the County Commissioners ought to 23 look at it. There's going to be a break-even point where it 24 makes more sense for you guys to follow a different plan. 25 Now, I wouldn't think you'd be there at $175,000, when you 8-6-07 jwk 29 1 consider the full range of services that that one truck is 2 actually going to be able to provide for you. But that's -- 3 and maybe that's all stuff we need to talk about more next 4 spring, but I understand exactly your point. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think our whole -- one of 6 our greatest points is that we try to keep taxes as low as 7 possible for everybody, including people in the city, and 8 that's where we come from. We try to keep everything -- our 9 salary schedules and everything we do at the County are much 10 less than what the City pays, so we know that, you know, once 11 we agree to fund things like these increases, we know that 12 we're paying a bunch of increases for salary people in the 13 city which we don't -- we're not up there yet. 14 MR. HOFMANN: There are no increases in that cost 15 allocation for Fiscal '08. None. Just to point that out. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All right. 17 MAYOR SMITH: Now, when you mention keeping taxes as 18 low as possible, we also have the responsibility of providing 19 services for our citizens. And we can all lower the taxes; we 20 can just say we're going to shut out this, but we have the 21 responsibility of providing services for our citizens. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know what? I believe we 23 do. 24 MAYOR SMITH: I'm concerned with that first, and 25 then taxes second. 8-6-07 jwk 30 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. Well, we -- I'm not 2 talking about lowering them; I'm just talking about keeping 3 them as low as possible without big increases. 4 MAYOR SMITH: Y'all probably have somebody fussing 5 about taxes to you also. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: They should fuss at you, too. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm sure they do. 8 MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, thank you. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Next one I show is the library. 10 MR. HOFMANN: We took a very simple approach to 11 projecting a County allocation for library service going into 12 Fiscal '08. It's completely consistent with what we talked 13 about at the spring meeting. At the spring meeting, County 14 Commissioners actually suggested that we move away from the 15 concept of trying to define a 50/50 cost share for operating 16 costs and all of -- all of that, and the suggestion was that 17 we treat the current amount as a flat number to be adjusted by 18 some appropriate escalator every year. The idea being, as I 19 recall it, was that if we -- if we discussed this from the 20 standpoint of a flat number and not a percentage, and the 21 County Commissioners wouldn't have to be then working through 22 a percentage of what kind of discussion, that things would be 23 much more straightforward. And, so, what we very simply did 24 is take the current fiscal year's contribution number and add 25 3 percent to it, and we come up with about $466,000. And, 8-6-07 jwk 31 1 Council members, that's what our recommended budget assumes. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Only comment that I'll make is 3 that I think the discussion ended a little bit differently 4 than your summary. I think that we agreed to, you know, use 5 the current year -- base year for a while. I think it was 6 really weighted a lot on some discussion that Councilman Gross 7 had about where the library's going in the future. And to 8 kind of put that baseline in as a -- kind of a place-keeper 9 for a year or so, and then look at a long-term accelerator -- 10 decelerator on county funding, but have it, like you said, not 11 tied to -- we're not 50/50 partners. The County's going to 12 fund "X" dollars for that service, to -- I mean, to allow the 13 county residents to use the service, and we're not a partner, 14 so to speak, in the library. We're just going to provide 15 funding for a library 'cause we think it is a worthwhile thing 16 to have available to the county residents. 17 MR. HOFMANN: And I'll apologize if I missed a 18 discussion about decreasing that number over time. It's 19 because it wasn't discussed. It was discussed in one context, 20 but pretty clearly where the group ended the discussion was at 21 that flat number to be escalated. And I actually went back 22 and listened to the tape and looked at the minutes of the 23 meeting. That is -- and it's up to this body to discuss what 24 the long-term plan is, but that is where it was left. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Let me say -- let me say one 8-6-07 jwk 32 1 thing about the way the library's been funded. If we continue 2 to do it on a 50/50 split, basically the operational cost, 3 past history will tell you that almost every budget year, in 4 every budget, whether it be city or county, there are excess 5 funds that were not used in that fiscal year. The County has 6 never received a -- a credit or a refund of funds that were 7 unexpended for that budget year. 8 MR. HOFMANN: Well, you're right, that topic does 9 have some history. Very frankly, it's not true to say that 10 the County never received credit for that. Going -- this 11 predates me, and I may have my fiscal years wrong, but going 12 from -- from Fiscal '05 into Fiscal '06, the County's 13 contribution was significantly discounted by that, quote, 14 unquote, return of equity concept. My -- the predecessor to 15 me City Manager wrote a long memorandum on that that I think 16 most people in the room have received a copy of, and so, yeah, 17 there was a one-time offer, if you will, from the City to 18 provide a discount, if you will, for that return of equity. 19 And that, in fact, was done. This subject -- 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Jonathan, was that done? 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: At one time. 22 MR. HOFMANN: One time. And -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 24 MR. HOFMANN: And then there was some subsequent 25 discussion about all of that, I think, at your last meeting -- 8-6-07 jwk 33 1 at your last joint meeting or the meeting before that. And, 2 Judge Tinley, the minutes reflect that you actually went 3 around the room and asked everyone in the room if we were at 4 an okay place, if you will, moving forward on that subject. 5 And I took it from that that that whole topic was off the 6 table. You know, it is true that in every budget, we end the 7 fiscal year without expending everything that is budgeted to 8 be expended. To -- to logically conclude from that that there 9 ought to be some return back to the County, we don't approach 10 it that way on any other interlocal agreement, including 11 Animal Control. That would change significantly, I think, the 12 nature of those funding agreements, and if that's what this 13 body wants us to do, we'll certainly look at that. To be 14 frank, I'm not sure that makes any sense. That's not the way 15 I think this works. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, only -- 17 MR. GROSS: May I ask a clarifying question? I'm 18 not following this. Do I understand -- if, at the end of the 19 year, we have not spent the entire budget, -- 20 MR. HOFMANN: Mm-hmm. 21 MR. GROSS: -- County contributions don't roll into 22 the next year's -- 23 MR. HOFMANN: Sure they do, just like everything 24 else. 25 MR. GROSS: They don't go into the general fund? 8-6-07 jwk 34 1 MR. HOFMANN: Sure it does. Of course it does. 2 Every -- what you don't spend in any general fund operation at 3 the end of that fiscal year, unless you reappropriate, it 4 rolls into the next fiscal year. And, oh, by the way, the 5 compilation of that share that next fiscal year is based in 6 part on that beginning balance. Absolutely. I mean, I think 7 that's a fair way to approach it. It's the way we approach it 8 on every other service. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That doesn't seem to show up 10 in the documentation, where you're starting with a fund 11 balance for the next -- you're going to have to allocate those 12 funds, exactly what was left over, to go into the next year's 13 budget. Otherwise, they stay in the City's general fund. 14 They don't come back to the County's general fund in the 15 unexpended amount. 16 MR. HOFMANN: No, it does not. You're right. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know I'm right. That's 18 not -- 19 MR. HOFMANN: I'm not arguing that point. And we 20 don't do it for Animal Control either, or any other joint 21 service. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what my argument's 23 going to be for making a set amount, and we could care less 24 what you do with it. You're supposed to provide the service 25 for us if we give you a specific amount, rather than based on 8-6-07 jwk 35 1 a percentage. 2 MR. HOFMANN: And that's exactly what we're 3 recommending. That's exactly what we're recommending, 4 consistent with what I thought the discussion was last spring. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Admittedly, I don't have the 6 minutes in front of me from last year's meeting, but my 7 recollection is we talked about several scenarios. We talked 8 about the potential of a library district; that seems not to 9 be a viable solution. We talked about other potentials, but I 10 do recall in the discussion, one of us, and I think it was 11 Commissioner Letz, talked about the fact that the County was 12 going to put -- establish a benchmark or a cap, if you will, 13 on what we contribute, and then begin to systematically reduce 14 that down to a figure that we believed was an acceptable 15 figure from the County's point of view. Internally, in our 16 own budget meetings, we have had that type of a discussion, 17 using the 443,000 current number to begin to systematically 18 get down to, over a period of time -- like, perhaps three 19 years, get down to a level of funding that we believe is an 20 acceptable level of funding. And, again, it's all based on -- 21 in our mind, a lot on utilization statistics. And I know that 22 sometimes draws the ire of our counterparts at the City, 23 talking about utilization stats, but in every particular 24 instance, it has valid -- it is a valid consideration, how 25 much is being used -- how much of the service is being used 8-6-07 jwk 36 1 and by whom, over what period of time. So, that -- that's my 2 recollection of how we came about this discussion. And we 3 were to take the 443 and then begin to systematically get it 4 down to a number that we thought was an acceptable number. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: The alternative to that discussion, 6 Commissioner, according to my recollection, was the 7 possibility that we might look at segregating these various 8 facilities or functions, and the City being totally 9 responsible for one facility and/or function, and the County, 10 in turn, being responsible for another facility and/or 11 function. It seems to me like that was another alternative 12 that was thrown out on top of the table to be looked at. As I 13 recall, that certainly would -- would end the discussion that 14 we're having here today, at least as to those facilities that 15 are segregated in that manner. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct, Judge. That 17 was talked about. 18 MAYOR SMITH: You know, you mentioned that less 19 county people use it. It's mathematically proven that more 20 county people use the library than city people, because the 21 people in the city are in the county. That's what I asked you 22 to recognize. Now, everybody keeps bringing up every now and 23 then this $94,000. Your predecessor, Bruce, was disturbed 24 about that. That $94,000 was credited in the -- in the amount 25 the City put in that month -- or for that year. It was -- and 8-6-07 jwk 37 1 the County had the election of taking the money or getting a 2 credit, and they said, well, just give us credit. So -- and 3 that keeps coming up and up and up. But you got the money by 4 a credit against that year, and your predecessor knew it, and 5 he kept bringing up, "The City owes us $94,000," and I kind of 6 got a little teed off at him. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Was it that much, really? 8 MAYOR SMITH: 94,000 that was accumulated of these 9 excesses, and it was offered to the County, and they said just 10 give us credit. And that -- that ended that. I think -- 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: So, that budget that next 12 year was decreased by $94,000? 13 MAYOR SMITH: Right, that's correct. 14 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, it was. 15 MR. TROLINGER: And, Commissioner Oehler, I'd like 16 to clear up a point, if I may. Judge Tinley, on the 17 information technology side, thanks to an Open Records request 18 by our H.R. person, I found out that y'all have an information 19 specialist at the library. Is that correct? That's based at 20 the library -- that's budgeted from the library? 21 MR. HOFMANN: No, he's not budgeted in the library; 22 he's budgeted in E.I.T. budget. 23 MR. TROLINGER: Okay. Well, the Open Records 24 request showed that it was from the library budget. But with 25 the agenda item for the City/County broadband being on the a 8-6-07 jwk 38 1 agenda today here, I thought I'd mention that, because we're 2 about to share some resources, and I think it would help the 3 county out if I had help from that specialist that's in the 4 library budget, you know, help them with integrating -- not 5 integrating, but cooperating with broadband services between 6 the city and the county. Hopefully we'll be able to work that 7 out on that agenda item. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, on the -- going back to 9 the -- I'm not real far off from where Paul -- what his 10 recollection or reading -- listening to the tapes shows. I 11 mean, I just think there was a discussion there that the 12 funding amount would be reduced. But I also recall that it 13 was kind of put on hold until the City did their facilities 14 plan, and which I think was brought up by Councilman Gross 15 before. The feeling was from him, and probably by me and 16 probably others, is that that library is not worth putting a 17 lot more money into that physical plant; that a new facility 18 probably needs to be looked at. And I think the City is 19 currently doing that, and I think there's -- kind of 20 everything was on hold from the funding until that was looked 21 at and a decision made by the City. So, that's kind of where 22 I thought we were; that we were just going to keep the funding 23 constant until that facility plan the City's working on is 24 complete, and then at that point, the County would look at 25 long-term direction for the library. 8-6-07 jwk 39 1 MR. HOFMANN: Just to make sure everybody in the 2 room is aware that the County's contribution, at least for the 3 last couple of years, didn't go towards capital improvements 4 or the fiscal plan at all. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 6 MR. HOFMANN: Nor should it. I mean, it is the 7 city's building. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, the contribution level 9 there, too, also reflects especially one very large salary, 10 the head librarian. I understand Schreiner College has hired 11 a Ph.D. librarian for $45,000, and our librarian that we do 12 pay cost-share on makes 75. Those kinds of things, there are 13 comparisons. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I guess I'm a little confused. 15 I mean, Commissioner Oehler serves on the Library Advisory 16 Board from the County's standpoint; he certainly is more 17 familiar with the library. I thought we were going more to 18 paying a flat amount, and not being a -- not worrying about 19 the details of where the money goes. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like that. 22 MR. HOFMANN: That's exactly what we recommended. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think the same theory can 24 work with Animal Control. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay, that's next. 8-6-07 jwk 40 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I know. 2 MAYOR SMITH: I think if I had a Ph.D., I wouldn't 3 go to work for $45,000 a year. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, they must really like to 5 live in Kerrville, is all I can tell you. 6 MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess my point to that is -- 8 Mayor, is that we have a lot of elected officials that have 9 monster jobs that are a much bigger responsibility than 10 running a library, and making a whole lot less. 11 MAYOR SMITH: We can talk about Commissioners and 12 Councilmen's salaries if you want to. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I wasn't going to refer -- 14 MAYOR SMITH: That's a joke. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Commissioner's salary was not 16 going to enter into it. I'm talking about some other people 17 that have very tedious and technical jobs, such as the County 18 Clerk, District Clerk, Tax Assessor/Collector that have 19 monster jobs that are making much less than the librarian. 20 That's hard for some people to swallow. 21 MR. HOFMANN: Council members, y'all just let me 22 know if I need to defend the city salary schedule, and I'm 23 happy to do it. 24 MR. GROSS: No, you don't need to defend the salary 25 schedule. We're not here to defend salary schedules or 8-6-07 jwk 41 1 budgets or anything. We're here to defend the people who live 2 in this county. And the Mayor made a good point, that our 3 number one job is, A, to provide services. We've got to 4 provide services. B is to do so efficiently. One issue that 5 we've been left with is the unknowable, and we're going to 6 have this discussion probably when we get to the airport about 7 overhead and calculating. And we came to, earlier, when we 8 talked about the fire and EMS, that it's difficult; maybe it's 9 impossible to calculate exact costs and exact splits right 10 down the middle, impossible to calculate the cost exactly. 11 But that's okay; we are paying for capacity. I have not used 12 Louise Hays park this year, but I'm glad to pay for it, 13 because I know at some time I'm going to use it. I haven't 14 used the EMS this year, but I'm glad to know that I have an 15 ambulance there if I need it. I'm paying for capacity. I 16 have no problem with that. But we're going to have to stop 17 trying to nickel and dime this thing, look at the big picture, 18 and act like the gentlemen that we are and just do what makes 19 good, common sense. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Councilman, do you think it's 21 appropriate to talk -- to explore this issue of segregating 22 these functions and/or operations? 23 MR. GROSS: You know, I think -- thank you for 24 asking that question, sir. I think -- I think in broad terms, 25 yes, but in specific terms, I think it's a waste of time. 8-6-07 jwk 42 1 We're not going to be able to calculate how many people from 2 outside the city use the library, and even if we did, what 3 would we do with that number? People outside the city have 4 the ability to use the library if they choose -- choose to do 5 so. We're not going to calculate the exact costs of the fire 6 engine, because Raymond's saying other people from time to 7 time and the volunteers, absolutely, do contribute valuable 8 input to this process. So, I think we need to think in broad 9 terms. We can say, look, we're going to put the money -- I 10 don't -- I don't know how to do it, Judge. 11 MR. HAMILTON: I think your question was along 12 different lines. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, yeah. The Mayor had suggested 14 that at one point, as I recall, we look at assuming sole 15 responsibility, on either the county or city side, for -- for 16 some of these various functions. He mentioned the City being 17 responsible for the operational costs of the library and the 18 County being responsible, for example, at the airport, so that 19 we -- so that we don't have these two -- two discussions. And 20 that was what I was referring to, is it might be meaningful to 21 -- to have -- 22 MR. GROSS: I think it might be very meaningful. 23 We're not here to build a fence in the area of citizens. That 24 may be a better way to serve them. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think, certainly, it would -- 8-6-07 jwk 43 1 you know, some of this back and forth that I've been hearing 2 in the last few minutes would certainly be eliminated. And 3 then any issue of accountability is clear. If there's a 4 deficiency in the operation, why, accountability is very 5 clear. And I think -- I think the citizens and the taxpayers 6 want accountability, very frankly. So, it occurs to me, you 7 know, maybe -- maybe we could achieve some results by having 8 that discussion. 9 MR. GROSS: That'll work for me. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- in a sense, we're 11 doing that with the library. We're saying it's a city 12 function, and the County will fund a flat fee for that service 13 available to the citizens that live outside the city limits. 14 Airport, I think the same thing has basically been done. If 15 it would be -- if these two entities here will allow the 16 Airport Board to run the airport and quit meddling in it, I 17 think that that problem would be solved. The issue -- you 18 know, I think the airport has a chance to make some big 19 changes this year, and I think if it would just be run 20 separately, I think it would be okay, and let it be funded by 21 the two entities that own the real estate, but let the other 22 -- let the Airport Board run it. You know, and I think that's 23 kind of doing what you're saying a little bit different way. 24 It's not a complete separation, but it is much more of a 25 separation than we've had in past years. I mean, the Judge 8-6-07 jwk 44 1 knows, and so does -- Mr. Hofmann knows, I frankly objected to 2 having the airport on this agenda. I don't think it's a topic 3 for this board any more, other than governance only. And I 4 think the discussion of one taking it over or the other is 5 appropriate. Other than that, that should be run by the 6 Airport Board, and then a recommendation made to -- if needed, 7 to the City Council and Commissioners Court. And I don't see 8 that -- so I think that, you know, we kind of say we want 9 things to be run separately, then we keep on meddling in it. 10 So I think we need to, you know, give things a chance to run 11 the way they've been set up. 12 MR. GROSS: Commissioner Letz, you have absolute 13 agreement that the Airport Board can run the airport. That's 14 the way it ought to be. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Jon, you're -- getting the 16 politicians out of the Airport Board, I -- I was at the head 17 of the column when it came to that argument. I think that's a 18 wonderful idea, and let that Airport Board do what it was 19 formed to do. What I was suggesting is going one step 20 further, and kind of as a follow-up on what the Mayor said, 21 have -- for example, that the City assume all the operational 22 costs of the library; we'll assume all the operational costs 23 of the airport. That's -- that's carrying it to the logical 24 end, I would think. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Certainly shorten these 8-6-07 jwk 45 1 meetings. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, it would. That's where I'm 3 trying to go. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Couldn't be detrimental, could 5 it? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I don't know. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Unless we give -- we need to 8 try it, see if it can work. We can always go back the other 9 way, I guess. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I think the issue of -- when it comes 11 to trying to do these -- these other functions, certainly EMS, 12 we've got a fabulous EMS system, and I think we're -- we don't 13 seem to have much of a problem with it. On the fire, we've 14 got an option if we want to pursue it. We can stand up some 15 volunteer fire departments out in the county and provide 16 appropriate funding for them. You know, the two big items 17 seems to boil down to the airport and the library. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What it seems like. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You know, but the only other item of 20 any material impact is the Animal Control, and number one, the 21 dollar volume of that item is not such -- I realize it's 22 growing, but it doesn't rise to the magnitude of the others. 23 And I'm confident that -- hopefully, we can get that to where 24 it's -- it's handled in a manner that -- with the ease EMS is 25 handled. It's just -- it's just the street running the other 8-6-07 jwk 46 1 direction, is all that is. But it seems that the library and 2 airport seem to be the big sticky wickets, and I'd sure like 3 the avoid those if at all possible, if we could do that. 4 MR. COLEMAN: Judge, just a question along that 5 line. Administratively, the County seems to be fairly tight 6 on their budget year to year to year, and in -- the City is 7 the Airport Manager, because they've had more of the 8 administrative resources than the county. Would the County be 9 able to develop administratively to take care of a burden like 10 the airport? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm confident that we could. I'm 12 confident that we would -- we could fund that Airport Board 13 and let that Airport Board run the airport like it's put in 14 place to do. We will be a funding mechanism. You know, 15 essentially what we'll do is take whatever funds we might 16 allocate to the library and shift them over there. 17 MR. COLEMAN: I remember a discussion from last 18 year; I thought about it quite a bit personally, and I've -- 19 I've vacillated quite a bit. I think my number one thought 20 now is that we need to wait for Bobbie Thompson to come back 21 with her recommendation. I think that's one issue she's going 22 to address in full detail. Regardless of how she addresses 23 it, my current thinking -- and, again, I have vacillated a 24 little bit. My current thinking is that that airport is such 25 a tremendous economic development resource for the county and 8-6-07 jwk 47 1 the city that it would be hard for it to be in either one; 2 that I do think it should be an independently managed body by 3 an independent Airport Board, but I think it would be hard to 4 make it either a city or a county asset. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: What, essentially, I'm talking about, 6 Chuck, is just segregating the funding. And, you know, that 7 would still leave the governance issue open. 8 MR. COLEMAN: Let the independent board operate it. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's why that -- right now, 10 that's why that Airport Board is in place. Whether you 11 recognize it or whether it was recognized for the full 37 12 years now that it's been in existence, that it had the legal 13 authority to control the operations out there with very -- 14 very specific limitation, that's what it's there for. That's 15 why it's always been there. Now, it's only been recently that 16 it's been afforded the opportunity to exercise that authority, 17 but I need -- I think it needs to continue, and what I'm 18 talking about here is -- is merely providing responsibility 19 for funding. If there are additional governance issues that 20 are -- that are remaining that are to be addressed by the -- 21 by the airport business plan, by the -- this development 22 strategy work that's presently underway, those can be 23 addressed separately. I'm just talking about the funding over 24 here for the airport and the funding over here for the 25 library, for example. And a simple -- simple acquiescence 8-6-07 jwk 48 1 that y'all would assume one, we'd assume the other, and go on 2 down the road. 3 MR. COLEMAN: Would you be willing to flip-flop 4 those? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Pardon? 6 MR. COLEMAN: Would you be willing to flip-flop 7 those? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, we have a minor problem. All 9 of the assets of the library are owned by the city, you see? 10 And I think that makes that aspect of it impractical, because 11 those assets are -- are totally tied in the city, property 12 assets and so forth. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I think I look -- I 14 don't see a great benefit to doing what the Judge is saying. 15 I think it would work. And it really doesn't change anything 16 at the airport. It just means that the Airport Board's going 17 to still contract with someone to do most of the management 18 out there. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean, the City -- the 21 County could fund 100 percent of it and the City could still 22 do the work, you know, if that's what negotiated by the 23 Airport Board. It doesn't change that. It just changes the 24 funding side of it, you know. But I don't -- 25 MR. HAMILTON: But I think it's very constructive in 8-6-07 jwk 49 1 the sense it changes this from a discussion where we're 2 haggling over a $50,000 increase in fire control costs or not. 3 That goes away. I think the perception of the haggling is 4 decidedly negative. 5 MR. COLEMAN: And it is almost like stepping over 6 dollars to pick up nickels. I mean, all of these moneys we're 7 talking about is -- 8 MR. HAMILTON: That's right. All of the budgets are 9 small. 10 MR. COLEMAN: -- very minimal, and yet it does 11 create a lot of contention amongst the bodies. 12 MR. HAMILTON: So, I think it's a constructive idea. 13 The problem you've got on the airport is the current agreement 14 says that the assets at the airport are 50 percent owned by 15 the city and the county, and if one entity or the other does 16 not pay 50 percent of the operating costs, all the assets 17 revert to the other party. That's your current legal 18 agreement, correct? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. But that -- that's a 20 new agreement. I mean -- 21 MR. HAMILTON: So, that's the point I'm leading to. 22 So, if we pursue this idea, the first step would be to have 23 some attorneys draw up what changes would have to be made to 24 the current agreement. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's correct. As well 8-6-07 jwk 50 1 as -- as well as the service agreement as well. There are 2 some changes in that, in the service agreement. 3 MR. HAMILTON: Seems to me, as an action item 4 leaving this discussion, maybe we should request that such 5 changes be drafted for review. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, I -- 7 MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Hamilton, that's exactly what's -- 8 I'm sorry. I was just going to suggest to Mr. Hamilton, 9 that's exactly what is happening as a result of the July 10 Airport Board meeting. In fact, I was tasked by the Airport 11 Board to come up with contract language that would do exactly 12 that. 13 MR. GROSS: Let me make a comment about that. I'm 14 -- you know, we have a system that is really not proper -- 15 appropriate if we just play by the rules. We might be trying 16 to fix something that's not broken. And I know that 17 Mr. Hoffman's been working on a plan to allow the board to 18 hire its own management, which I think is a good thing, and a 19 plan that would put us on a cost-plus basis, which I think is 20 a good thing. But I believe when we actually look at numbers, 21 we're going to say, no, it's really not such a bad deal the 22 way we're doing it right now. I hate to use a sledgehammer to 23 fix something that really just needs a coat of paint. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- I mean, I haven't 25 probably seen as many of the numbers as you have seen. Paul 8-6-07 jwk 51 1 and I have only met a couple of times related to the airport 2 management things. But I do agree -- I mean, let's -- let us 3 quit tinkering with it and let the Airport Board try to run 4 it, you know, as an independent entity. That -- and this is 5 going to be the first year -- I mean, it was -- last year was 6 a lot of issues, and a lot of them going back to the Airport 7 Manager issue, who he reports to. That, I think, is -- is 8 working towards being resolved, and let's let the Airport 9 Board try to run the airport for, you know, a year or so and 10 see if it's working. And then, if it's not working -- I mean, 11 we quit trying to fix things and tinker with it every year. 12 MR. GROSS: I agree. 13 MR. COLEMAN: I think I agree with that as well. 14 And, again, taking into account the business plan that we're 15 about to receive. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Well, what the Judge is 17 suggesting, obviously, could work; I do agree with 18 Commissioner Letz and the City Councilmen. I believe -- I 19 believe the key to it is allowing the Airport Board to do its 20 job and contract for the services that are best needed to meet 21 the needs of the airport, and that never has been done totally 22 and completely. I think we're on the threshold of allowing 23 that to happen. I'd like to see that happen. 24 MAYOR SMITH: Well, I was on the Airport Board about 25 four years; finally got disgusted with the County and the City 8-6-07 jwk 52 1 fighting. If you want to have an independent Airport Board, 2 you ought to take the darn politicians off the board and let 3 it run as an independent deal. Make it an enterprise fund, 4 that they have to support themselves, and let it go at that. 5 But, I don't -- egads, you and I have had 18 million 6 disagreements on the Airport Board over those four years. 7 And -- 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Is that all? 9 MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, well, maybe a few more. I 10 rounded it off. But, the -- under the city charter, the 11 Airport Manager, if it's provided by the City, has to report 12 to the City Manager. And I mentioned that a lot. Now, if you 13 want a separate Airport Manager, he would have to be a 14 separate person employed by the Airport Board and -- and 15 compensated by the Airport Board, and his benefits paid for by 16 the Airport Board, which -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Mayor Smith. 18 MAYOR SMITH: -- to hire a person and get benefits 19 for one individual is almost impossible. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not true. It can be done 21 through interlocal with either the City or the County. 22 MAYOR SMITH: Well -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we don't -- well, we know 24 through interlocal with the County, and I wouldn't know why 25 you couldn't do it, the City doesn't have the same legal 8-6-07 jwk 53 1 authority to do it. I know the County has legal authority to 2 do it. 3 MAYOR SMITH: But, anyway, whatever -- whatever it 4 would be. But I think you need to get the politics out of it 5 and -- and run it like a professional organization. I have no 6 problem with that. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think -- 8 MAYOR SMITH: I don't know how you could do it with 9 -- with two strong political bodies owning it, unless you let 10 one or the other own it. As far as I'm concerned, the Judge 11 said the County would like to own it. I'd give it to the 12 County. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We'll take it, thank you. 14 MAYOR SMITH: Lock, stock, and barrel. 15 MR. GROSS: Give them the Arcadia while you're at 16 it. (Laughter.) 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Do we have to take that as part of 19 the -- 20 MR. GROSS: Package. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Mayor, I just think -- I go 22 back -- I think the -- my discussions with Mr. Hofmann, and I 23 think the -- and the Airport Board, since you've been off that 24 board, I had -- I see hope that it's going to work out. And 25 work -- 8-6-07 jwk 54 1 MAYOR SMITH: Since I got off it. (Laughter.) 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I didn't mean it quite like 3 that, Mayor. But I think that there -- you know, I just -- 4 let the Airport Board try to operate as an independent Airport 5 Board. I think there is a way to do that. I'm optimistic 6 that, you know, the discussions I've had with Mr. Hofmann will 7 be fruitful and we'll come up with the agreements that will be 8 acceptable to the Airport Board, acceptable to the City as a 9 manager, or provide most of the management services. And I 10 really don't think the City and the County needs to be 11 involved in it. 12 MR. HOFMANN: Well, the one -- the one caveat to 13 that is that the -- both entities, the County Commissioners 14 and the City Council, will need to amend the interlocal 15 agreement. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, the governance. 17 MR. HOFMANN: It speaks to how all that works now, 18 and that -- that will need to be amended. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 MAYOR SMITH: Yeah, both agreements need to be 21 completely changed, because the Airport Manager's under the 22 operating agreement. It has to be put over -- 23 MR. HOFMANN: And it will change the nature -- 24 MR. HAMILTON: Both of them. 25 MR. HOFMANN: It will significantly change how the 8-6-07 jwk 55 1 City -- the City budgets and how the city is organized. Costs 2 will go up, and we're not budgeted for that. But that's all 3 -- these are all solvable problems. 4 MAYOR SMITH: The way the Airport Board is 5 structured now, they're an independent board, but they can't 6 do anything without the city and the county approval. They 7 can do it; then they have to go to the city -- 8 MR. HOFMANN: Actually, no, sir. That's -- I wasn't 9 going to respond to the "meddling" comment until the Mayor 10 just brought that up. The -- the County and the City actually 11 do very little any more. This was as a result of the Airport 12 Board being reconstituted a few years ago, and just think 13 about it. Over the last couple of years, how many action 14 items, other than the approval of the budget, has the City 15 Council seen? I really don't think it's true that the City 16 Council has been meddling. Airport issues never show up on a 17 City Council agenda, other than to approve the budget. Now, 18 it is true that the Airport Manager has been a city employee, 19 and there's been a reporting relationship there. And I -- you 20 know, the 800-pound gorilla in the room is the fact that the 21 Airport Board would prefer a different structure; the Airport 22 Board would prefer to employ the Airport Manager. And if 23 that's where we go, that's where we go. There are some 24 implications of that, but sure, yes, that's doable. We can do 25 that. 8-6-07 jwk 56 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What you say is true, 2 Mr. Hofmann. And, by the same token, airport issues haven't 3 shown up on the Commissioners Court agenda either, with the 4 exception of imposition of a dollar amount for budgetary 5 consideration. 6 MR. HOFMANN: And that won't change. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And the only thing in the 8 governance agreement that I recall that was reserved back to 9 the -- to the owners was sale of property, acquisition of 10 property, taxation. 11 MR. HOFMANN: Right. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Everything else is Airport 13 Board's, within their prerogative -- its prerogative. 14 MAYOR SMITH: Appointment of members is a city and 15 county function. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 17 MAYOR SMITH: Appointment of members on the board 18 has to be done by the City. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, each of the respective bodies, 20 under the current arrangement, appoints two. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That probably should change, in 23 my mind, but -- 24 MAYOR SMITH: Whatever. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 8-6-07 jwk 57 1 MAYOR SMITH: There's a better way for every problem 2 we have. All we have to do is find it. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The better way was approved 4 by the voters, if we go back in history -- about 40 years ago, 5 Judge? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: 37. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: 37 years ago, when an 8 airport authority was approved by the voters of Kerr County. 9 Which included everybody who lived in the city, I might add. 10 MAYOR SMITH: Good. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But what they failed to do 12 was give that airport authority taxing -- taxing control. 13 They could not levy a tax, so you could have an authority 14 where they were all appointed at large or elected at large or 15 whatever, but they couldn't tax. They couldn't raise the 16 money, so therefore, it went begging. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, Mr. Mayor, I'm hearing a pretty 18 clear consensus that, with regard to airport operations, that 19 as has been phased in, it hasn't been on your agendas, hasn't 20 been on our agendas, but to let that Airport Board serve its 21 function. My preference, of course, is to have all the board 22 members not be members of either the Court or the Council, but 23 that, of course, is another issue. That, I think, will be a 24 material help, and let the -- let the board run that airport. 25 Secondary to that, the other possibility that I'm raising here 8-6-07 jwk 58 1 today in order to avoid this on an annual basis would be for 2 one body or the other to assume sole funding responsibility, 3 and in exchange for the other body assuming the funding 4 responsibility for another joint function like I've talked 5 about. But that, of course, is -- is separate and apart. It 6 can be -- it can be plugged in later. If you want to wait on 7 the airport business plan study that's underway, we can take a 8 look at that then. We can implement that next year if 9 possible. 10 MAYOR SMITH: Judge, we're paying for that business 11 plan; we ought to at least wait for it, to get the report 12 before we make some decisions. That seems logical. Even an 13 Aggie can figure that out. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Okay. 15 MAYOR SMITH: Now, we seem to have gotten onto 16 airport. There was one thing I wanted to mention about the 17 library. The library recognized that service wasn't extended 18 to the county in certain places, and we had a bookmobile that 19 was going to serve the outlying areas of the county. Nobody 20 used it, so -- but we were considerate of the people in the 21 county, but it just didn't work out. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, we tried it and it -- 23 MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. Sometimes -- 24 JUDGE TINLEY: -- it wasn't viable. 25 MAYOR SMITH: -- they work, sometimes they don't. 8-6-07 jwk 59 1 Thank you. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't we take a little break here 3 so I can let this reporter have a break for about 15 or so 4 minutes. 5 (Recess taken from 9:38 a.m. to 9:52 a.m.) 6 - - - - - - - - - - 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Before we get back into what we were 8 doing, it'd probably be appropriate to make some 9 acknowledgment here for the food this morning. Of course, 10 Commissioner Oehler was primarily responsible doing the 11 cooking, he and his brother Donald, for the sausage and egg 12 and tacos and hot sauce and all that other stuff that went 13 with it. My wife fixed the fruit. And -- and Jody, our 14 admin., and Eva Hyde are responsible for the drinks. So... 15 (Applause.) 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, sir. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're welcome. It was a very 18 inexpensive breakfast. Cost-effective. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's get back to work. Have 20 we beat on the library enough? Or are we going to work on 21 that some more? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I thought we were on recycling 23 now. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, we'll go to recycling. You 25 went to an easy one, didn't you? That facility is kind of an 8-6-07 jwk 60 1 autopilot arrangement. Essentially, the County owns the 2 property, the City operates it, and it's open to both 3 citizens, and that's that. Is that about it in a nutshell, 4 Paul? 5 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Do we need to do anything 7 there, other than what we're doing? If it ain't broke, let's 8 don't fix it? 9 MR. HOFMANN: I'm not aware of anything that's 10 broken. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question, it was just 12 sort of related in my mind. What's the status of the dump? 13 Is it shut down now? Is it still -- 14 MR. HOFMANN: The city's landfill? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, landfill. 16 MR. HOFMANN: Charlie, do you want to give an 17 overview? 18 MR. HASTINGS: Love to. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We can do that. We want to give you 20 that opportunity, Charlie. 21 MR. HASTINGS: Thank you very much. No, the 22 landfill's never going to be closed. It will always be open 23 in some form or fashion. The City has an agreement with 24 Allied Waste; it's a 20-year agreement whereby they're going 25 to put in a transfer station. And -- but that's only going to 8-6-07 jwk 61 1 be for 20 years. That's going to allow us adequate time to 2 accumulate more soil for the daily cover, as well as funds for 3 closing and post-closure. But we are also working on plans to 4 expand the landfill beyond that. We don't want to be 5 shortsighted. Twenty years seems like a long time, but it 6 goes by like that; it'll be over before you know it, and we 7 want to have an expansion that will make the landfill go 8 another 50 years beyond that 20. So, we're looking at 9 ultimately a 70-year plan. It will be open. But during the 10 transfer station, the only part that will be open at that 11 point would be for your brush, your chipping, the composting 12 that goes up and takes place up there, those type of items. 13 Maybe some construction and demolition, which would be soil 14 and rocks and concrete, those kind of inner sub -- substances. 15 So, that's the plan. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, from the public standpoint, 17 they just still go out to the landfill as they've always gone 18 out there? 19 MR. HASTINGS: Yes, sir. And when the transfer -- 20 the great thing about when the transfer station is in 21 operation is that instead of driving their vehicle all the way 22 over into and on the dump and through the dump and over nails 23 and everything else, they will drive up to a concrete bay, 24 turn around, back in and dump their stuff on a concrete floor, 25 and there will be a loader there that'll -- that will shove it 8-6-07 jwk 62 1 into an 18-wheeler that'll be in a bay that's lower. It will 2 just be pushed right over into an 18-wheeler at the end of the 3 day that will haul it off. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: When will that be operational? 5 MR. HASTINGS: That will probably be operational in 6 the next two and a half, three years. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 8 MR. HASTINGS: You're welcome. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Are the fees going to increase 10 because of the transfer? Or is it going to be -- 11 MR. HOFMANN: Actually, we think we did a pretty 12 decent job of negotiating this 20-year contract, with an eye 13 towards keeping the fees low. And, relatively speaking, what 14 customers pay for garbage collection today is comparatively 15 very low. We were able to negotiate a 20-year agreement with 16 Allied Waste that keeps a pretty significant lid on future 17 rate increases. They can -- they can increase rates over that 18 20-year period, but it has to be tied to a pretty 19 conservatively described cost index. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, 'cause one of things 21 that we experience, especially outside the city limits, is the 22 fact that the higher the dump rates are, the more stuff is 23 dumped on county roads and -- 24 MR. HOFMANN: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- property, and left in 8-6-07 jwk 63 1 public facilities where there are dumpsters, that sort of 2 thing. So, I know that maybe if fees were free, some of those 3 people still wouldn't take them. But more than that, increase 4 does have a bearing on what gets put in -- what gets left on 5 the side of the road. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. That brings us to Animal 7 Control. I think Commissioner Oehler just released some 8 current figures from that operation out there. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Oehler is the -- the Commissioner 11 that has oversight responsibility of that particular function, 12 so that's why he's coming with these numbers. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I had Janie Roman, our manager 14 at Animal Control, to come -- to put together the figures up 15 to this point of what -- what the experience has been for this 16 fiscal year, and you have them in front of you, so that'll 17 give you a pretty good idea. They went back and checked every 18 receipt; took them several days to do it, compile these 19 numbers. But the numbers, I believe, are audible and factual. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bruce, have you looked at -- 21 first, cats from the city, 109; cats from the county, 107; 22 cats from Ingram, 23. Then we get cats received, 575. Why 23 don't those -- Kerrville, Kerr County, and Ingram -- add up to 24 575? 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because a lot of them are 8-6-07 jwk 64 1 surrenders. There's a trapping program that's going on where 2 residents will trap feral cats and bring them into the 3 facility. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, surrenders are not allocated 5 from where -- they're just surrenders? They're not allocated 6 to one or the other? 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right, they're not. These are 8 ones that are picked up. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. So, there's no allocation 10 as to surrenders? 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, it will be just -- the 12 difference in those numbers will be the surrenders. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, I mean, it's fairly logical 14 that it would be basically the same percentage as the other 15 one. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I would think it wouldn't be 17 much different. I don't know why it would be a lot of 18 difference in the regular numbers. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Same apply to dogs? 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Right. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- those were pretty 22 close to 50/50 in the current -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what it appears to be, 24 from what she's telling me. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This year, the City's paying 60 8-6-07 jwk 65 1 percent; the County's paying 40 percent, so the recommendation 2 would be to go to a 50/50 split? 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what -- I believe the 4 numbers are close to that. 5 MR. HAMILTON: And, of course, the city's already 6 paying 50 percent to start with, since they have 50 percent of 7 the assessed tax valuation of the county. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The alternative to that, 9 Councilman, is that you put in your own facility and run it 10 yourself. And that won't be cost-effective compared to this 11 cost. 12 MR. HAMILTON: Aren't we already paying 50 percent 13 of the cost? Aren't we residents of the county? 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm still telling you, you can 15 do it yourself if you'd like to, and you'll have to do it like 16 you used to. You'll have your own facility, hire your own 17 people, and you're going to -- all city people are going to 18 pay that cost, as opposed to this cost. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's the -- that's 20 what happens when you become a municipality. The county no 21 longer has authority to go in there and do a lot of these 22 functions. We're -- or responsibility to do it, I should say. 23 May have authority; they don't have the responsibility to do 24 it. I mean, it's -- that's why Comfort's going through a big 25 debate with Boerne -- or Kendall County right now for the same 8-6-07 jwk 66 1 issue. Kendall County wants to quit providing these services 2 to what they consider to be a municipality in Comfort. I 3 mean, and Comfort is resisting because they don't want to have 4 to pay for stuff they're getting paid for, you know, at a 5 lower rate right now. 6 MR. HAMILTON: Is the County requesting a cost share 7 from Ingram? 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yes. We have a contract for 9 housing only at this point, and we are going to be, I think -- 10 being as their Animal Control officer was killed in a car 11 wreck, may be in negotiation with them over doing some -- the 12 pickup as well as the housing portion of it. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And if that's the case, it'll be 14 -- it will just be adding a third-party into the agreement. 15 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right, party to the 16 agreement. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: 45 percent, 45 percent. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I believe the proposed budget 19 for the coming year is, like, $240,000, is what we had come in 20 the other day in court. And that's -- actually, the size of 21 the facility has been doubled within the last year or so, and 22 the personnel it takes to run it, I think it was only being 23 upped by one. Isn't that correct, Judge? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: That's my recollection, yeah. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: By one. 8-6-07 jwk 67 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Actually, I think it's being upped by 2 a half. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Half. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: By half. Half an employee. 5 And we're using community service to do some of the service 6 work out there, so we don't have to hire people. So, I think 7 we've got the costs of that as low as we're going to get it. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it should also be noted 9 that the expansion of the facility was done by private 10 donation; didn't cost the taxpayers of the city or county or 11 anybody else. It was done by an individual who thought there 12 was a need and provided the funds. 13 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And by doing that, that's also 14 upped the adoption rate quite a bit. We're hoping that that 15 will increase even more as time goes on. We don't like 16 euthanizing animals. Nobody does. And so the extra facility 17 will allow us to hold animals longer, and maybe we can get 18 more of them adopted, but it does create more work when you 19 have twice as many animals to take care of on a daily basis as 20 you normally have. But only going up by half an employee is 21 not -- I don't think is too bad. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I noted in Mr. Hoffman's letter his 23 reference to administrative costs in looking at these 24 functions. The general administrative costs for the Animal 25 Control facility, other than the direct cost for those 8-6-07 jwk 68 1 employees there, they're -- they're not in that budget. 2 They're absorbed into other budgets, County Attorney's budget, 3 County Commissioners, Human Resources, all those various -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Auditor. 5 MR. HOFMANN: Well, if we got our facts wrong, I 6 apologize, but it was our understanding of that $147,000 cost 7 allocation that the County asked the City to contribute the 8 last fiscal year, that 6,000 of that included administrative 9 costs, was the information that we had. And if that's not 10 correct, I apologize. And it's not that much money, and we 11 don't mean to overdo the point. It was just that, again, we 12 don't consider overhead -- we haven't, or administrative costs 13 in what we allocate to the County for City-provided services. 14 In -- in fairness, we suggested that it wouldn't be either. 15 And if you're saying you don't, then you don't. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Frankly, I don't -- I don't recall, 17 Mr. Hofmann. Last year, I have some vague recollection that 18 maybe there was a -- a factor. 19 MR. HOFMANN: Okay. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: And I think the numbers that -- that 21 Mr. Oehler is going from now are straight off the -- the 22 budget that we've looked at for the Animal Control department, 23 raising Animal Control only, and do not include any -- any 24 administrative allocation or anything of that nature. Isn't 25 that correct? 8-6-07 jwk 69 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's correct. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. 3 MR. HOFMANN: So, when -- when will you let us know 4 what you are asking us to budget? 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What is that number? 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think -- I don't have it 7 with me. I left the budget at the office. Seems like it was 8 246,000, is what I remember, somewhere close to that. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't recall off the top of my 10 head, but we will get you that number. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Your costs will actually be 12 lower this year than what they were last year. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the issue with Ingram worked 14 out as soon as possible. That's a pretty recent occurrence, 15 that death. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: 'Cause, actually, the contract 17 now with Ingram is for $350 a month to house animals that are 18 caught, and they're limited to -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ten. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- ten a year, yeah. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Ten a month. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Which they very seldom even come 23 close to. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, they don't normally come 25 close to that. 8-6-07 jwk 70 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Okay. Now we're to the 2 airport. Again. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Pass. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: What can we say now that 5 hasn't been said? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I -- I think there's a lot to 7 be said with that statement. 8 MAYOR SMITH: That's basically a work in progress 9 right now, the airport. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure is. 11 MAYOR SMITH: Things need to be done, but I think 12 we've discussed it in all the detail that's necessary, I feel 13 at this time. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm very optimistic of the consensus 15 that I -- that I heard a little bit ago. I think -- I think 16 that's exactly where we need to be going. 17 MR. BOCK: Judge, one quick -- on the airport. Do 18 we have -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir? 20 MR. BOCK: -- a time that -- when the airport will 21 have their report in to us, approximately? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Airport Board directed 23 myself, as chair, and Mr. Hofmann to have an agreement 24 recommended back to them, a revised kind of management 25 contract agreement issued by the September board meeting, 8-6-07 jwk 71 1 so -- which will be the third Tuesday in September. 2 MR. BOCK: And the -- and Bobbie's report is due? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Probably -- 4 MR. COLEMAN: I thought it was a six-month report 5 from a month ago, so probably -- 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: About five months remaining. 7 MR. BOCK: Towards the end, okay. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And -- but the feeling is that 9 the budget numbers, you know, we'll work within those best we 10 can. 11 MR. HOFMANN: Okay. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else? 13 MR. BOCK: Thank you. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- there were some things that have 15 been thrown out on the table before, and if we have a little 16 time, which we seem to have, I'd like to at least keep on top 17 of the stove, maybe not on the front burner, but some possible 18 cooperative efforts. We talked about a health benefits 19 program, about trying to have a -- if there's some way we 20 could have a joint group -- a larger group, which generally 21 the theory goes that the larger the group, the -- the more 22 predictable the cost and more stable the cost, because you're 23 dealing over a larger group of people, and it prevents one 24 high health cost employee from really throwing the whole thing 25 out of whack in a small group. Our -- our consultant with 8-6-07 jwk 72 1 Alamo Insurance Group, I know in the past I have provided his 2 name and contact information to the City. I don't know what 3 degree of melding there's been there. I understand the City 4 has just recently brought on board a new consultant for 5 y'all's program? 6 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, we have. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: That was, what, within the last two, 8 three months? 9 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. It occurs to me that maybe the 11 best place to start on that is to -- to get our two 12 consultants together, and I think initially they could 13 probably -- with some basic information, if there's -- if 14 there's a reasonable possibility that this can happen, they 15 could -- they'd be the ones that tell us, and if so, what the 16 time frame's going to be. Wouldn't you agree? 17 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, I would agree very much, and 18 appreciate that comment. City Council, we've had some 19 conversation about this at Council meetings, and it would be 20 our plan to have our consultant work with yours and create 21 that, yes, sir. Targeting the Fiscal '09 plan year as a 22 potential starting point, yes, sir. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Anybody else have any more 24 that they want to throw out on that? 25 MR. COLEMAN: I'm in agreement, but I almost 8-6-07 jwk 73 1 remember some preliminary discussion with one of our 2 consultants that indicated that -- that typically that is a 3 good idea, but in our case, we may not have a large enough 4 employee base combined to impact it significantly. And I -- 5 and, again, I don't know that -- I don't know how I got that 6 in my mind, but I do remember somebody saying that. Although 7 I do think it's -- it's important that we investigate it and 8 go through that -- that process, but I'm not sure that we'll 9 potentially gain a lot of benefit. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I recall that, but I 11 think the -- part of the reason was the differences in our 12 plans, also. It was kind of -- 13 MR. COLEMAN: Could have been. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- the cost benefit of combining 15 the whole thing. You know, it wouldn't be an easy -- one 16 step, because our plans are somewhat different, and -- you 17 know, but I think, still -- 18 MR. COLEMAN: Again, I agree. The consultants -- 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Consultants get that, 'cause 20 they understand -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, that's a totally different 22 language that they speak. And when they talk to each other, 23 if we're listening to them, we don't have a clue what they're 24 saying. But they seem to. 25 MR. COLEMAN: Don't want to learn the language, 8-6-07 jwk 74 1 either. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it is a little difficult to get 3 geared up on. Another item I put on the program to discuss is 4 the issue of road repair, rehabilitation, sealcoating. As -- 5 I had mentioned this, I believe, at one of our meetings within 6 the last year. As you know, Kerr County maintains a -- a 7 pretty significant capability of being able to rehabilitate 8 and repair and sealcoat roadways, because we do our own out in 9 the county, and anytime we construct totally new roadways, 10 they're either done by developers, or if it's a totally new 11 project, normally it's handled by a contractor. But when it 12 comes to repair and rehabilitation and sealcoating, we do that 13 function ourselves, and Leonard Odom does an excellent job of 14 that. I know that in y'all's capital improvement plan, 15 that -- that there's some road issues to be addressed. It 16 occurs to me that there may be a way, under proper 17 circumstances, that -- that we could give you more bang for 18 the buck than -- than a private contractor could. Because you 19 folks, frankly, don't have the equipment; you don't have the 20 crews and that sort of business. And if we can facilitate 21 y'all being able to get more bang for the buck there, give you 22 more -- more square yards or cubic yards, or however those 23 guys calculate all this stuff, of work for -- for the same 24 amount of money, why, it behooves us to take a look at it. 25 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir, and appreciate that very 8-6-07 jwk 75 1 much. And I think Charlie -- Charlie would be happy to work 2 with Mr. Odom and sort through those details. One -- one 3 thing to keep in mind -- Council members have heard us speak 4 to this. We've got a bit of a hump we need to get over with 5 our funding levels, and we are -- we are planning to infuse a 6 significant amount of cash into our street rehabilitation 7 system with a bond program we are planning to have in the fall 8 of 2008. And, in the meantime, we are literally scraping by 9 as best we can with roadway rehabilitation, and there's not a 10 lot left for what you would call traditional preventive 11 maintenance activity like sealcoating. We do recognize what 12 you guys bring to the table, and would be very willing to look 13 at some sort of fair agreement there, and whatever you would 14 be willing to provide within the city limits, we would 15 appreciate. 16 MR. COLEMAN: What about actual road construction? 17 Can you all do that? Or reconstruction? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reconstruction, we do. New 19 roads are generally contract services. 20 MR. COLEMAN: Would you -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We don't have a bunch of 22 bulldozers and scrapers, things of that nature, for big 23 construction, but we can do repairs, maintenance. 24 MR. HOFMANN: Right. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What do you call it, your 8-6-07 jwk 76 1 zipper? 2 MR. ODOM: Zipper. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Goes along, grinds up and relays 4 it. 5 MR. COLEMAN: And reforms it. 6 MR. HOFMANN: Charlie, would you like to add -- 7 MR. HASTINGS: Well, yeah. The City does have -- we 8 do have equipment and the capability to reconstruct some roads 9 too, and we did last year. We did Methodist Encampment Road. 10 And it's not something that -- it was something that we wanted 11 to experiment with and see what we were capable of doing. We 12 don't have the ability to lay down asphalt after we've 13 reconstructed the road base. We can get the base down, but 14 after that we've still got to get a contractor in to do the 15 asphalt overlay. But Len and I talked about this same subject 16 last year, and he said, "Charlie, if we're going to do it, 17 it's going to take quite a bit of coordinating, because I can 18 only do so many square yards per year with the material and 19 the men and the amount of time I have. So, if we do 20 something, give me enough advance notice that we can schedule 21 it." And right now, the City's plans are -- and our schedule, 22 we're not going to do any sealcoat this summer. We're not 23 going to do any sealcoat next summer, but the summer after 24 that, we're going to start kicking that program up again, 25 'cause we've got some streets that it's going to be time to do 8-6-07 jwk 77 1 that sort of work. So, if we could have the same discussion 2 again this time next year, that would be good. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Better to start too early than too 4 late? 5 MR. HASTINGS: Yeah. We do appreciate it very much, 6 and we do recognize that there's some cost savings, and we 7 just want to be sensitive to -- at the same time, to what -- 8 what Len's trying to do in the county. 9 MAYOR SMITH: We need to do something about our 10 roads or we're going to have a new City Council. 11 MR. COLEMAN: It's one of our biggest issues right 12 now. 13 MAYOR SMITH: No question about that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll let the Aggies work on this 15 one, Mr. Mayor. 16 MAYOR SMITH: Okay. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay? 18 MAYOR SMITH: Good hands. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Next one I've got down here is 20 Emergency Services Dispatch. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll take a quick stab at that, 22 'cause Commissioner Baldwin's absent today. He usually runs 23 with that. He and I have served together. Only thing I'd 24 really like to say on that is to emphasize that the County is 25 very serious about offering the property out by the jail for a 8-6-07 jwk 78 1 potential future police station-slash-dispatch, and other. 2 That's a value, I think, of -- you know, potentially -- I 3 mean, assuming the City needs the space or could utilize it, I 4 mean, it's, you know, a million, a million-plus land value 5 that we're willing to long-term lease, give, whatever, 'cause 6 we don't see a long-term need from the county standpoint. And 7 I think it would be a benefit from a law enforcement 8 standpoint, county and city-wide, to encourage, you know, that 9 direction. I think -- I know we sent over a resolution not 10 long ago, but it's just something that we're very -- you know, 11 very serious about, I think, from a Commissioners Court 12 standpoint, of pursuing. And I think it -- it gets a -- the 13 joint dispatch committee has met, and there really is no way 14 to further any kind of a joint dispatch until facilities are 15 closer. It just doesn't work real well. I mean, it's just 16 hard to figure out how to make it happen. I think both the 17 Sheriff and Chief Young were at that meeting, as was 18 Councilman Gross. I think it just -- it's just too hard of a 19 nut to crack unless the facilities are located in proximity, 20 in which case there is some benefit. It's not going to be a 21 cost savings. It's not a -- economy of scale issue really 22 doesn't work here, 'cause you're probably going to need to 23 have both staffs there, but it could be located in one 24 building or one facility, potentially, and there are some 25 other benefits to having the facilities, Police and Sheriff's 8-6-07 jwk 79 1 Department, located near each other, just by the nature of 2 having them together, sharing training rooms, break rooms and 3 things of that nature. There is some economies of scale. 4 But, anyway, that's just, I think, the only comment I have 5 really on the joint dispatch, that there's nothing really on 6 the horizon short-term, but that offer is a serious one from 7 the County to -- you know, in your long-range facilities plan. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: You got anything you want to pitch 9 into that one? 10 MR. HOFMANN: No, sir. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 12 MR. COLEMAN: You know, we don't currently have 13 anything in our capital improvement forecast for the next five 14 years for that type application, but we're awaiting our 15 facilities report, which we're hopeful is going to help 16 address some of that. It may make sense. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: How much relief are you -- it's my 18 understanding that you've got -- that you're going to try and 19 transition over on your municipal court from a space 20 standpoint. How much relief is that going to give you over at 21 the cop shop? 22 MR. HOFMANN: Some. And Chief Young might be ready 23 to address that. We know that that's going to create a little 24 bit of room. I can't quantify that for you. 25 CHIEF YOUNG: I'm not sure. I think 2,300, 2,400 8-6-07 jwk 80 1 square feet, something like that maybe. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: That much, huh? 3 CHIEF YOUNG: Yes, sir. It was -- with closet space 4 and reconfiguring, it may give us that much. So -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 6 CHIEF YOUNG: -- we're planning on moving some 7 functions around to utilize part of that space, and expand 8 some of the -- the current facilities we have downstairs. You 9 know, you had an old building; it was reconfigured, and 10 probably needs to be reconfigured again, just because we've 11 changed the way we function. So -- but it'll -- it'll provide 12 us some -- some additional space to move a function or two 13 down there. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Time frame? 15 CHIEF YOUNG: It's not a matter of time frame. It's 16 a matter of money. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: But the courts -- is it not 90 days 18 from -- 19 MR. HOFMANN: Does anyone in the room have a good 20 date on when we expect that work to be complete? 21 CHIEF YOUNG: Charlie? 22 (Discussion off the record.) 23 MR. HOFMANN: Few months away, 60 days. 24 CHIEF YOUNG: Sixty days from the time the contract 25 was signed for the courts to be able to move. 8-6-07 jwk 81 1 MR. HOFMANN: And we're looking to appropriate some 2 funds, and the budget recommendation includes some funds for 3 the Police Department to reconfigure the space that's being 4 vacated by municipal court. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: So, it looks like maybe before the 6 end of the year, possibly, that you'll have -- 7 MR. HOFMANN: The calendar year. End of the 8 calendar year, yes, sir. 9 CHIEF YOUNG: Probably end of the calendar year. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, good. Good. Okay. Anything 11 more on the emergency services issues? You got anything, 12 Sheriff? 13 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: No. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: I just wanted to wake you up over 15 there. 16 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'm awake. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Dreaming about Colorado again. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Airport governance. I think 20 we've already -- we've already hashed and thrashed that one 21 too, haven't we? 22 MAYOR SMITH: I agree with you. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Broadband services. You have 24 to get information from someone other than me, 'cause I'm 25 technologically challenged. But, John, tell us -- tell us 8-6-07 jwk 82 1 what kind of cooperative possibilities you see there. 2 MR. TROLINGER: Yes, sir. I know you put this on 3 the agenda because I mentioned it in our budget workshops. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 5 MR. TROLINGER: And it's a project that started with 6 the former I.S. head at the City, and the project stagnated. 7 That's why it came up in a workshop. And one of the things 8 that -- that everybody in this room probably has is a 9 computer, and relies on that computer, including the isolated 10 outposts, which, you know, some of them are out in Ingram for 11 us, some of them out towards the dump. But the backbone of 12 that whole system is the network, the computer network. And 13 the County's built an $8,000 per-year cost for -- recurring 14 cost network, and what I'm trying do is increase the amount of 15 -- of bandwidth without increasing this annual cost that we're 16 paying. The City has water towers and water tanks, and we 17 agreed to use those facilities to install microwave relays. 18 The primary purpose was to connect the Sheriff's Office to the 19 courthouse for our side, and the city -- the Police Department 20 with the courthouse for law enforcement, information sharing. 21 In November, we agreed on all this, and as of March, the last 22 status I had, we didn't have pricing from the contractor. The 23 City Manager has been -- and Travis Cochrane and I spoke 24 before the meeting. Sounds like we've reached an agreement to 25 do this, but I just want to make y'all aware that sharing -- 8-6-07 jwk 83 1 expanding this and sharing a city/county network has a lot of 2 benefits for everybody. 3 MR. HOFMANN: And -- and I will apologize to the 4 County Commissioners and to the City Council; I was not aware 5 we had a project like this until John mentioned it to me right 6 before this meeting started. But we are more than happy to 7 evaluate what this might look like, and it -- it makes -- it 8 certainly makes sense to at least do that, and so we will 9 spend some time on it and we'll come back with a report on 10 where we need to go. 11 MAYOR SMITH: Since the Judge mentioned he's 12 technically challenged, the Mayor is technically challenged, 13 and can you describe what a broadband is in a couple of 14 reasonable sentences? 15 MR. TROLINGER: What we're really talking about is 16 bandwidth, the thing that your computer uses to connect -- the 17 wire that plugs into your network locally. You've got lots of 18 bandwidth, but when you want to go outside the -- the city 19 building that you're in and connect to the internet or connect 20 to another city facility, you need to have a connection, 21 basically like a telephone line. And the amount of bandwidth 22 that the county has right now between the Sheriff's Office and 23 courthouse is out -- is becoming -- you know, growing, so we 24 need more bandwidth. 25 MR. GROSS: Like putting a bigger water tank into 8-6-07 jwk 84 1 your house. 2 MAYOR SMITH: Okay. 3 MR. TROLINGER: We've got two options. I can pay a 4 very expensive fiberoptic lease, you know, to have a 5 fiberoptic line, or we can utilize the city facilities and 6 install our own microwave links. And in conjunction with 7 that, I think Travis and I can work with -- with y'all's 8 network engineer at the library, and -- and, you know, help -- 9 he could help out, so we don't -- kind of -- kind of smooth 10 things out. That's where I see that working. 11 MAYOR SMITH: Sounds like a good program from my 12 untechnical viewpoint. 13 MR. TROLINGER: But it doesn't -- in some respects, 14 it makes this a joint network between the city and the county. 15 We can share resources. 16 MAYOR SMITH: That's -- 17 MR. TROLINGER: Saves money. 18 MAYOR SMITH: -- what we should be doing. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Whatever all that means. 20 MR. TROLINGER: I'd like to see it move as quickly 21 as possible. It's budgeted -- some money is budgeted this 22 year; it needs to be spent before the end of the fiscal year, 23 and then the next year, additional. 24 MAYOR SMITH: Thank you. 25 MR. TROLINGER: You're welcome, sir. 8-6-07 jwk 85 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody else have anything in 2 connection with that particular item? I note that the Mayor 3 has -- the manager has put announcements on his agenda. I 4 guess I'll -- 5 MR. COLEMAN: Mayor? In the -- in light of joint 6 projects that we're talking about, -- 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 8 MR. COLEMAN: -- I have one other one I'd like to 9 ask about. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 11 MR. COLEMAN: And I have no knowledge other than 12 what I've read in the paper, and it's about the sewer system 13 that's going in in Center Point. And I was -- I was curious 14 as to what a status update on that might be. And city of 15 Kerrville has excess capacity, and I was curious if -- if we 16 are considered for that; if it is going to go to Comfort, or 17 just what the status of it is. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: I'm going to defer to Commissioner 19 Williams. He's the guru on the Center Point/East Kerr 20 Water/Wastewater project. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Councilman and members of 22 the Council, the feasibility study that was jointly funded by 23 Texas Water Development Board and Upper Guadalupe River 24 Authority has been completed and submitted to T.W.D.B. for -- 25 in accordance with our contract with that agency. In that 8-6-07 jwk 86 1 feasibility study, it detailed two options, Option A and 2 Option B. Option A was to -- let me back up and say, first of 3 all, it is a wastewater collection system essentially for the 4 community of Center Point, both north and south of the river. 5 And the Option A was for a transmission of the wastewater 6 to -- westward to city of Kerrville to tie into the stub, 7 which I assume is either at the airport or in the vicinity of 8 Commerce Park -- Airport Commerce Park. That was Option A. 9 That entailed a lift station and a pretty long push up the 10 hill to get wastewater to that point. Option B was to, again, 11 have a smaller lift station, but not as much force behind it, 12 to take it to a crown around Government Crossing, in that 13 area, and then go by gravity flow to the town of Comfort, to 14 the Kendall County Water Control -- Water Control and 15 Improvement District Number 1 for treatment services. 16 The Option B to Comfort was the one that was 17 identified as being the most effective by the engineers who 18 did this feasibility study. A lot of reasons why. First of 19 all, the operational costs on an ongoing basis for lift 20 station and transmission, not treatment services, was less by 21 going even a greater distance to Comfort. The offset -- of 22 course, a negative is that there's additional cost to 23 additional -- the additional transmission line by several 24 miles. The other option, the other part of that in terms of 25 making Option B the preferred option was that it puts in place 8-6-07 jwk 87 1 then an infrastructure line for the 7 -- the 7 miles of 2 eastern Kerr County after you get out of the -- of the 3 community of Center Point, what used to be their corporate 4 type limits, in that, in effect, you've laid infrastructure 5 all throughout the eastern part of the county, and that, of 6 course, is a plus. 7 It is our understanding and belief that that type of 8 -- that concept is something that the Water Development Board 9 looks upon favorably, because it embodies a regional type 10 concept for the establishment of infrastructure and of 11 wastewater services in particular. We have entered into an -- 12 or initiated and have signed a letter of intent with Kendall 13 County Water and Control District Number 1, and intend to send 14 a similar letter of intent to the City of Kerrville for your 15 consideration with respect to negotiation of -- of those 16 services or those -- those elements regarding service that 17 would be required to complete an intergovernmental agreement; 18 i.e., operational costs, treatment costs, et cetera, et 19 cetera, et cetera. And in the -- in the letter of intent that 20 we will forward to Mr. Hofmann for consideration by the City, 21 we'll be clearly identifying that the preferred option at this 22 point is Option B. But a lot of things can happen that can 23 change that, and we certainly would like to have a letter of 24 intent in place with the City as well. 25 Secondly, there will be a letter of intent 8-6-07 jwk 88 1 circulated or sent over to the Upper Guadalupe River Authority 2 board for its consideration, for being the agency in the 3 middle to be the operator of the system. The County, as we 4 did in Kerrville South, acquired the funds, did the 5 construction, and at the completion of construction -- I'll 6 get to Kerrville South more in detail in a second. At the 7 completion of construction, we turned that system over to the 8 River Authority for its operation and ownership. It will be 9 the intent in this case to do the same thing. The only caveat 10 with respect to ownership might be that that will depend on 11 whether or not there has to be any sort of a debt instrument 12 to pay off the total cost of it, like revenue bonds or 13 whatever, in which case you couldn't transfer ownership until 14 that debt is -- has been satisfied. So, that essentially 15 is -- is the status of it. 16 We now have an application pending. Having 17 completed Level 1 feasibility, we now have an application 18 pending with Water Development Board for additional funding. 19 Up until about 60 days ago, the application would have been 20 for what they call Planning, Acquisition, and Design funding, 21 PAD money. My understanding is, under the -- they're 22 reworking their rules based on a new funding pot from the 23 Legislature for EDAP money, economic -- the Economically 24 Distressed Area money, and that might be separated. Might be 25 just one element of it instead of three elements of it, 8-6-07 jwk 89 1 meaning we got to jump through a hoop one more time. There 2 are several steps remaining to get there, but the first step 3 has been completed. And that's where it -- that's where that 4 project is. 5 On Kerrville South, we have completed -- we've 6 gotten funding for and have completed construction of three of 7 the four phases of Kerrville South Wastewater Project. They 8 are finished, and they have been turned over to U.G.R.A. for 9 ownership and operation. They, in turn, have an interlocal 10 agreement with the city for treatment services and so forth. 11 And that's kind of the -- the tri-part model we believe is a 12 workable model with three agencies working to make these 13 things happen. That's kind of it in a nutshell, Councilman. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me add two things. One, 15 going back to the Option A, Option B. Option A is -- bringing 16 it to Kerrville requires a forced main, and it cannot be -- no 17 expansion can be allowed into that. If you go to gravity flow 18 into Comfort, then you can tie into it. That's why the 19 regional aspect of it's a lot more attractive to the people 20 with the money, being the Water Development Board, because it 21 has a regional component to it. And the other part of it that 22 the County is not involved with directly, and really not 23 indirectly, is the water side of it. Upper Guadalupe River 24 Authority has -- I don't even know where they are, but they 25 are proceeding with applications also to be able to do the 8-6-07 jwk 90 1 water delivery system into the Center Point area. And -- and 2 that has some real benefit, you know, where they're going to 3 go. I mean, they're looking at both -- all kinds of different 4 options. Some -- possibly, you know, I guess the city 5 treatment facility, some new treatment facility, looking at 6 permits. There's a lot of issues that are kind of tying in 7 also with Region J as to running a lot of models, in the way 8 of models, looking at all the water issues in the river, which 9 the City will be very much involved with on the Region J side. 10 And all of that is -- you know, the area of the county that 11 appears to have the biggest need for a -- to get off of 12 groundwater is eastern Kerr County; it's Center Point to the 13 east. And by putting it hand-in-hand, it kind of -- it all 14 ties together going eastward. But U.G.R.A. is -- the County 15 is not involved, other than we're at a lot of meetings with 16 U.G.R.A. kind of in general discussion about it. They're 17 doing the water side by themselves. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And in that context, 19 Commissioner, their -- the feasibility analysis for that water 20 component was all part of the total package, both wastewater 21 and water, but U.G.R.A. funded the water element of that 22 feasibility study. That, too, has been completed and 23 forwarded to T.W.D.B., and my understanding is they have an 24 application pending, just as we do, for the next level of 25 funding. 8-6-07 jwk 91 1 MR. COLEMAN: And I do realize it's just a very 2 complex project in its entirety, and both sides of it. I 3 would just hope -- I was hopeful that us, with our 4 infrastructure in place, might be able to keep it in-county. 5 And -- but I do understand we've got to do the best for 6 everybody. 7 MR. HAMILTON: A question on Kerrville South. What 8 percentage of Kerrville South is currently on the sewage line? 9 Do you know? How many houses are on it? 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Probably right now, 11 Councilman, we have about 150 on it. In Phase 4, we may add 12 another 50 to 60, hopefully. When we talk about Kerrville 13 South, that project doesn't envision the entirety of Kerrville 14 South. It envisioned originally that area from Ranchero Road 15 and Highway 16 down to -- down to and around Camp Meeting 16 Creek, the area that was contributing the most pollution in 17 the county into Camp Meeting Creek, so that's the area really 18 that was satisfied with this four-phase plan. Three phases 19 are complete; one more remains to be done. 20 MR. HAMILTON: So, about three-quarters of what is 21 envisioned, 150 out of 200? 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 23 MR. HAMILTON: Okay, thank you. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Another -- two other areas I 25 briefly want to bring up. The ETJ issue, I think, has been -- 8-6-07 jwk 92 1 short-term, at least -- resolved between how we handle the 2 ETJ, or the Subdivision Rules in the ETJ. That was on the 3 table last meeting. I think it now is a done deal as to how 4 we're doing it. 5 MR. HOFMANN: Except the Council hasn't acted yet. 6 It's on their next agenda. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. And bottom line on that, 8 you -- I mean, a real quick summary, the County's street rules 9 were generally -- and drainage rules were -- oh, I don't want 10 to use the word "better." We decided -- 11 MR. HOFMANN: You can say better. "Better" is okay. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Were more applicable or better 13 than the city's rules -- standard rules. And those were 14 adopted by the committee, and I guess going to be recommended 15 to Council. And then some of the other standards of 16 streetlights and curbs, sidewalks, some of those issues are in 17 the ETJ rules, but there's an amendment or, I guess, a waiver 18 process that -- for developers to look at, depending on 19 exactly where it is in the ETJ. To remind everybody, this is 20 a rule that's mandated by state law. There are some problems 21 with it still, three issues that need to really be looked at. 22 I think still there's one -- floodplain. This provision did 23 not cover floodplain, which goes hand-in-hand -- or I should 24 say the state law that required this agreement didn't talk 25 about floodplains or O.S.S.F. So, the -- we were promised 8-6-07 jwk 93 1 one-stop shopping -- or the developers were promised one-stop 2 shopping, and they didn't get it. They still have to go 3 through the County for septic issues and review. And 4 floodplain, as I understand it, if it's in the ETJ, it still 5 has to go through -- 6 MR. HOFMANN: Right. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Len Odom, because that was 8 not envisioned. Even though those are, in our minds, part of 9 the subdivision process, they weren't in the state law 10 process, so developers are still having to work with both 11 governmental entities. And then the -- the worst problem has 12 come up in the -- I wouldn't say worst -- frequently, 13 developments straddle the ETJ line, and I think it is the 14 opinion of the legal counsel on both sides that the law did 15 not allow the City to expand beyond the ETJ. And we have 16 developments right now that are still having to go before both 17 City Council -- or the P & Z/City Council process and the 18 County through the Commissioners Court, because they have a 19 little bit of acreage on one side of the ETJ line or the 20 other. And we have one right now -- 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One in my precinct. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What's the controversial one in 23 Buster's -- 24 MR. ODOM: Buster's? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The Las -- 8-6-07 jwk 94 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Colinas. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Estates at Las Colinas. 3 MR. HAMILTON: Estates at Las Colinas. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's controversial because 5 just -- its poor developer has been bounced back and forth 6 between the county and the city for two years now, I think. 7 And now he's just been told he has to come back to the 8 Commissioners Court, and is worried that he did everything 9 according to the city plan and ignored the county, and now he 10 has to come back to us to get an approval, because he has a 11 little bit of acreage outside. I tried to assure him that I 12 don't see any problem, but anyway, there's still some issues 13 there, and we're going to have to -- when the city's 14 population gets to 25,000, their ETJ expands, and we're going 15 to have to relook at this whole process again, because this 16 was envisioned as kind of a stopgap between those. So, while 17 we've done a lot of work, everything is not still smooth 18 sailing. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Isn't acreage requirements one 20 of our problems with that, too? I know we have one out in my 21 area that was allowed to be put in half-acre -- half-acre 22 lots, and they still have to have septic. They do have city 23 water -- or, you know, public water system. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is it commercial or residential? 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One of them's residential. 8-6-07 jwk 95 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The commercial ones -- I knew 2 there was a commercial one, and it kind of goes through, 3 because our county standards allow a case-by-case decision. I 4 didn't -- 5 MR. HAMILTON: I believe we picked up the county 6 standards exactly in that area. 7 MR. HOFMANN: For acreage requirements, yes, sir. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think we're -- 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Because we really need that to 10 be in place. 11 MR. HOFMANN: That was our intent. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We're allowing people to 13 develop it. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That wasn't -- I mean, you know, 15 there are some issues still coming up on, you know, 16 manufactured homes and R.V. parks and all that, and recent 17 discussion as to who has -- who, if either entity, has any 18 authority over those type developments, but that's still a 19 little bit unclear. And the other issue that may be useful at 20 one of these meetings, or occasionally, is to kind of look at 21 the city annex plan as we're talking about the ETJ, 'cause I 22 think it's going to be something that's going to be on our 23 table for a long time, 'cause we're going to have to work 24 together on that as to where the City is going with some of 25 their long-range plans. I don't know that we need to have a 8-6-07 jwk 96 1 lot of discussion, but at one of our meetings annually, that 2 might be a good thing to add to the agenda. And final comment 3 was, Councilman Coleman had a comment about county budget 4 woes, and while we certainly aren't flush with funds -- I 5 don't think we ever will be flush with funds -- we had a -- a 6 very difficult time, I think everyone in the room is aware, 7 the year that the Juvenile Detention Facility surfaced with 8 huge amounts of problems. We have, you know, gone through 9 that. Our fund balance is now on the rebound again, as we 10 anticipated. We also, over the last 10 years, really have 11 done short-term financing on -- for all of our debt, 12 essentially, short-term up to, I think, seven years on one of 13 them. Those are being rapidly paid off, and the County will 14 be debt-free in 2012. So, I mean, we're -- our -- and we're 15 paying those -- you know, and that's when the jail gets paid 16 off. So, while we're not flush with funds -- I don't want to 17 give that impression, certainly -- the way we finance things, 18 we hit a big bump two years ago from a -- kind of a perfect 19 storm happened, and we're past that. And, you know, we're 20 looking at not great -- I'd say good economic times from our 21 budget standpoint of being able to fund what we think is 22 necessary. 23 MR. COLEMAN: Jonathan, I'm glad to hear that. My 24 comment was not meant in a negative manner at all. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It wasn't. I mean, you know, 8-6-07 jwk 97 1 useful to bring it up. There was -- we had a really tough 2 year. Our fund balance got, you know, down to below 20 3 percent, which is -- you know, our internal rules say we keep 4 it at 25 percent. And we're almost back to 25 percent. We'll 5 be very close at the end of this budget year, and by next year 6 we should recoup that. At the same time, we're paying off 7 debt, so... 8 MR. COLEMAN: That's good news. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Jonathan, back to the issues on 10 subdivisions and ETJ and so forth, these recent legislative 11 changes that were made that I think come on stream 12 September 1, if I'm not mistaken, that effectively give 13 counties more authority in those areas, is that going to 14 complicate -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think it's going to 16 change. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: -- cause any sort of a problem? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In the ETJ, I really -- I don't 19 see much of a change there. I mean, I think that we've pretty 20 much worked through it. I mean, the changes aren't huge. 21 They're somewhat minor. More specifically Kendall County, but 22 not Kerr County. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that's one of those MSA's that 24 you're talking about? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sort of. 8-6-07 jwk 98 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Well, okay. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes? 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Commissioner Letz mentioned 5 the Juvenile Detention Facility. It might be of interest to 6 the members of the Council to -- just an update on where we 7 stand with that. That has been a drag on taxpayers of the 8 county for some time, but that's pretty well stabilized since 9 we changed the operation to preadjudicated only in the annex, 10 the smaller of the two facilities out there. What's, I think, 11 of equal interest is the rule changes that are taking place 12 within the operation of the Texas Youth Commission, based on 13 the perfect storm that they had with the Legislature earlier 14 this year. The net result of that is that T.Y.C. is looking 15 for bed space, and they are looking to contract out with 16 operators for -- to provide juvenile detention type services. 17 That said, we have a facility that's available. There are at 18 least two entities that have passed muster with T.Y.C. in 19 terms of all the hoops they had to jump through to be 20 considered for a contract who are interested in sitting down 21 with us and negotiating -- possibly negotiating a lease for 22 that facility. 23 One of the concerns that became evident as a result 24 of that was K.I.S.D. and how that -- how the operation of that 25 facility affects them. And we've taken a pretty basic policy 8-6-07 jwk 99 1 position that if we lease it, and to whomever we lease it, 2 that operator would have to provide educational services, 3 probably through a charter school, the closest being San 4 Antonio, probably, that would have the ability to do that. 5 So, we'll just keep you posted. That's a possibility. That's 6 where that stands. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Essentially, we adopted the position 8 that -- that we were not going to do anything with regard to 9 the lease of that facility that would adversely impact 10 K.I.S.D. and their mission of education here locally. But to 11 follow up a little bit on -- to what you mentioned, the 12 changeover to the preadjudication actually this current year, 13 the revenue figures are running ahead of what we had 14 projected. The expense figures are running slightly behind 15 what we projected, so it's been a pretty good turnaround in 16 that operation out there. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: One other thing, I guess, that 18 might deserve a little mention is the fact Jonathan and I are 19 both on the Exhibit Center liaison list to kind of come up 20 with a plan to expand that facility into more usable type 21 space that could be probably utilized by the community more 22 so, because it would be more advantageous for many other shows 23 and things to come in where you have basically concrete floor 24 instead of having so much dirt, like we have like in our 25 indoor arena area. That plan has kind of started to be 8-6-07 jwk 100 1 developed. We're -- we figure it may take anywhere from three 2 to five years to bring it to fruition, but we are going to try 3 to do the bulk of it with foundation or donated funds. And 4 the main thing we're going to -- the main building that we're 5 wanting to build is another 150- by 300-foot metal building, 6 insulated; maybe part of it would be made to be heated and 7 air-conditioned. And we might actually like to have a little 8 bit of -- of the hotel/motel tax money to maybe fund the -- 9 hiring somebody to put the plan together for us. 10 I believe it's an advantage to have this for the 11 community for all of us, whether you be in the county or 12 inside the city limits and still in the county. But it's a -- 13 a facility that -- that's utilized a lot more than we really 14 think about. Not everybody that comes to town can use the Inn 15 of the Hills or Y.O. resort space. There are other shows and 16 things that do bring lots of people to do that, eat meals and 17 buy things and stay in motels. And I believe that if we build 18 a nicer facility out there, we'll be able to bring more people 19 in and generate a lot of economic development for -- not 20 development, per se, but at least generate some more money for 21 people that have businesses here, and it'll help us all. And 22 so I think at some point, we might ask for a little bit of 23 that hotel/motel tax; might help us put the plan together. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you, appreciate that. 25 MAYOR SMITH: There's one thing that I'd like to 8-6-07 jwk 101 1 mention. You know, politicians like to be called upon, and 2 there's a group that went up to Washington, D.C. last year; 3 the Judge, myself, Guy Overby and people from the Chamber of 4 Commerce, and one other person that's not going to be going 5 this year. But it's important that you knock on some doors, 6 not only for the congressmen and the senator, but their staff 7 likes to see some people, and those staff guys are the guys 8 that get something done. This year, I'm -- I'm not going to 9 wear my Sunday shoes the first day, 'cause it nearly killed me 10 last year. But it's important. And, like, Lamar Smith has 11 managed to get a $2 million appropriation on a bill. It's not 12 approved, but it's on a bill, which means it's step one. And 13 there's a lot of steps in Washington. 14 He's gotten a $2 million deal for our ag research 15 center, and he's gotten a $750,000 allocation for our police 16 department, which is really good. And, so, when you show up 17 up there, it's important. And there's certain areas here, 18 like AACOG -- I need to be on another committee, but I asked 19 to be on the AACOG executive committee. It was kind of 20 embarrassing; I was out of town the first time I was on there, 21 but you need -- you need to keep up with these people, because 22 they -- they have control of an awful lot of money, and we 23 need to bring it into Kerr County and Kerrville. So, I 24 think -- I think that's important, that the people know that 25 it's not just a trip to Washington, D.C. I spend an awful lot 8-6-07 jwk 102 1 of time in Washington D.C., and I don't need to go back there 2 any more. But I think it's important that you do that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: We made awful good use of our time 4 when we were up there last fall. I mean, it was -- it was -- 5 Guy Overby had that thing choreographed down to the minute, 6 and we made every single stop we needed to make and in a very 7 short period of time. So, it -- I think we were quite 8 efficient in what we got done up there. 9 MAYOR SMITH: Yeah. Well, I hope we are as 10 successful this year. 11 MR. GROSS: May I, sir? 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes, sir. 13 MR. GROSS: You know, I hate to argue with people 14 that I like. And Mack pointed out that we're all of good 15 intention. And, by the way, I'm sorry I called you cranky in 16 the paper last week, so I'll make amends. 17 MAYOR SMITH: I get cranky. 18 MR. GROSS: I was right; I just shouldn't have -- 19 but, anyway... (Laughter). But I'm wondering if it would be 20 helpful if we had some protocols for fund responsibility 21 sharing -- sharing fund responsibility, some general 22 principles, how we divide up funding responsibility. I think 23 I would like to nominate Mack for that job, because he's the 24 deepest thinker on this. I think part of the reason that we 25 don't make as much progress as quickly as we could is that we 8-6-07 jwk 103 1 don't have any guidelines how this is supposed to be done. 2 Just a comment. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I suppose at this juncture, 4 let's take a look. Let Mack go to work and -- and lay 5 something before us, and we can always hash and thrash, you 6 know. All we can use is a little time getting there. 7 MR. HAMILTON: Well, if we're going to do that, you 8 know, I would suggest we have somebody from the county side 9 also involved at its inception. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't you dare. Every time 11 there's something to be done, they all sit and look at me like 12 they're buzzards lurking on a limb. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll be glad to -- 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Buster's not here. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll serve. 16 MR. HAMILTON: Jonathan volunteered; sounds good to 17 me. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We worked together on a 19 committee a couple years back. We didn't kill each other 20 then; we can get through with this one too. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I like it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Y'all give it a run. Y'all give it a 24 run. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think it's a good idea. 8-6-07 jwk 104 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Now that someone volunteered to 2 do it. 3 MR. HAMILTON: Now that you're off the hook. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Kind of thing we should 6 support. 7 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think the choice is 8 excellent. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Or, like I told Bruce the other day, 10 "You go get 'em, Bruce. I'll be right behind you." 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Don't turn around and look. 12 Ain't nobody there. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Have we got any more thoughts, ideas, 14 possibilities on cooperative or joint things that we can pitch 15 out here this morning? 16 MR. BOCK: Judge, I'd like to make a quick comment 17 or announcement on our economic development study that we're 18 doing, city/county joint. It's going very well. Again, I'd 19 like to appreciate everybody in the county and the city for 20 their work on that. TXP, our hired consultant, just finished 21 up one of our local surveys, and had results beyond their 22 expectations, so I really appreciate everyone's participation 23 in the city and the county in taking those surveys, and 24 appreciate Commissioner Williams for getting it out there. He 25 did a great job publicizing the survey, and we had wonderful 8-6-07 jwk 105 1 results from it, of which I think we have a meeting coming up 2 on the 19th. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: 13th, I believe. 4 MR. BOCK: 13th. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Next Monday, yeah. 6 MR. BOCK: That, I think, will -- it's a pretty good 7 workshop, isn't it? Several hour workshop, from what I 8 remember. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Plugged in between 12:30 and 2:00. 10 We've actually got a Commissioners Court meeting, and I've got 11 some juvenile cases to hear in the afternoon traditionally, so 12 we're going to sandwich it in between those. And -- but we'll 13 have an hour and a half. I think we're going to have an 14 update from TXP at that point. 15 MR. BOCK: We'll do a little bit -- I'm kind of lost 16 on time frame on that. We have about another month or two 17 more months before they compile everything together and come 18 up with a -- I know they're working with the airport strategic 19 plan as well, the economic development there as well. So... 20 JUDGE TINLEY: TXP's original proposal was to try 21 and come forward with their initial results and overall 22 recommendation to us by mid-September, as I recall. That was 23 based upon them working with the airport, that they had 24 actually hoped we'd get started sooner than it did, but I 25 think there's been a pretty good deal of catch-up going on 8-6-07 jwk 106 1 there. I think they're pretty well on the same page. Bill 2 may have some more on that. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think -- I think they're 4 -- catch-up is correct, Judge. But I don't anticipate the 5 airport study before November, probably. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we're going to be bringing 7 something back to both bodies probably shortly after the 8 beginning of this next fiscal year, is when I would anticipate 9 that we're going to be coming back to you. And our plan is to 10 try and formalize something within the committee, and to bring 11 it back to you on a unified, joint basis to both city and 12 county, so that we can be marching to the same drummer on this 13 thing, 'cause I think that's very, very important. Appreciate 14 you mentioning that, Todd. 15 MAYOR SMITH: I don't know if it's proper, but any 16 of the people in our audience, if you'd care to make a 17 statement in any regard, we'd welcome it. Seeing none, I 18 guess we're done. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: You got anything else, Mr. Mayor? 20 MAYOR SMITH: No, sir. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Anybody on the Court have anything 22 else? 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be adjourned. 25 (Joint city/county meeting adjourned at 10:58 a.m.) 8-6-07 jwk 107 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 5 capacity as County Clerk of the Commissioners Court 6 of Kerr County, Texas, at the time and place 7 heretofore set forth. 8 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 10th day of 9 August, 2007. 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 8-6-07 jwk