1 2 3 4 5 6 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 7 and 8 KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL 9 Joint Meeting 10 Wednesday, August 6, 2008 11 12:00 noon 12 KPUB Meeting Room 13 2250 Memorial Boulevard 14 Kerrville, Texas 15 16 17 Kerr County Commissioners Court 18 PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 19 H.A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 WILLIAM "BILL" WILLIAMS, Commissioner Pct. 2 20 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 21 22 Kerrville City Council: TODD A. BOCK, Mayor 23 T. SCOTT GROSS, Mayor Pro Tem R. BRUCE MOTHERAL, Councilperson, Place 1 24 MACK HAMILTON, Councilperson, Place 2 CHUCK COLEMAN, Councilperson, Place 4 25 PAUL HOFMANN, City Manager 2 1 I N D E X August 6, 2008 2 PAGE 3 1.2 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to approve interlocal agreement with the City of 4 Kerrville for governance and operation of Kerrville/Kerr County Airport 3 5 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 6 establish Kerr County's FY 08-09 contribution to City/County jointly provided services including, 7 but not limited to: EMS, Fire Department, Library, Recycling Center, Animal Control and Airport 40 8 --- Adjourned 86 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-6-08 jcc 3 1 On Wednesday, August 6, 2008, at 12:00 noon, a joint 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and Kerrville 3 City Council was held in the KPUB Meeting Room, 2250 Memorial 4 Boulevard, Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings 5 were had: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call to order the joint 8 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and Kerrville 9 City Council pursuant to agendas posted for this time and 10 date, Wednesday, August the 6th, 2008, at noon, 12 p.m. 11 We're meeting here at the KPUB Board Meeting Room. 12 Mr. Mayor, did you want to do an official call of your 13 meeting to order? 14 MAYOR BOCK: Yes, sir, please. At this time, I'd 15 like to call the meeting of the -- special joint meeting of 16 the Kerrville City Council and Kerr County Commissioners on 17 August 6th, 2008, at 12 p.m., at KPUB Meeting Room. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Thank you. We've got two principal 19 items on our agenda to be considered today, and of the two 20 items, we've got a number of airport people here that I think 21 probably have an interest that maybe don't want to 22 participate in the rest of it. So, Mr. Mayor, with -- with 23 your permission, I'll call Item 2, to consider, discuss, and 24 take appropriate action to approve the interlocal agreement 25 with the City of Kerrville for governance and operation of 8-6-08 jcc 4 1 the Kerrville/Kerr County Airport. It's my understanding 2 that there has been considerable discussion and meeting in 3 the recent past between representatives of the Council and 4 the Commissioners Court relative to a governance agreement, 5 as it were, interlocal agreement for the airport, and I think 6 a draft has been circulated. I know very recently, the 7 latest draft was circulated to members of the Commissioners 8 Court. I assume it got to Council also by the Council reps. 9 Members of the Airport Board, did each of you get a copy of 10 the draft? 11 MR. BOBERTZ: I've not seen the draft. 12 MR. KING: No. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Oops. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It just became available this 15 morning. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: The final. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Actually, last night. 19 MR. KING: I have one in-hand, thank you. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: There are two versions out 21 there. There's a red-line and then the one that Mike Hayes 22 is passing out now, which has the blue lines of changes or 23 additions. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike's is the most recent -- 25 they're the same, I guess. 8-6-08 jcc 5 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The representatives that were 2 working on that from the Council, I believe, were 3 Councilpersons Gross and Hamilton, I believe, and then from 4 Commissioners Court, Commissioners Williams and Letz, and 5 I'll leave it to the four of you gentlemen to launch this 6 thing any way you want to, and we'll go from there. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, after a lot of meetings 8 over months, I think yesterday afternoon, with great help 9 from Mike Hayes, who there was there and kind of making 10 copies as we went through it, we went through a draft and 11 came up with a draft I think the four of us are happy with. 12 It's -- you know, I guess the -- why don't we go through page 13 by page? I don't know what's the best way to do it. 14 MR. COLEMAN: Jonathan, I've seen several versions. 15 If we just went over the top five or six major issues we had, 16 like ownership and the operation cost and capital cost, and 17 the board providence -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- I'll hit the budget one 19 first. Budget has not been included in this. We decided to, 20 for the funding portion of it, to put that as an exhibit, 21 because we knew that was going to be really discussed, and we 22 didn't feel it was our job to try to figure out that whole -- 23 the budget funding mechanism for all the City/County 24 operations, and this being a component of that, that was 25 pulled out. The other, I guess, main point goes to a 8-6-08 jcc 6 1 five-person board. There's some details about how they're 2 appointed, and it's -- basically, the appointment is -- we 3 call it the KPUB model to get onto that board, which is the 4 board -- Airport Board nominates people. Either the City or 5 the County can approve or not approve. If we don't approve, 6 we can only not approve twice, then the Airport Board makes 7 the decision. It's a way to move it along. I think everyone 8 is pretty much in favor of that pretty basic model. It 9 seemed to work very well at KPUB. The Airport Manager 10 reports to the Airport Board. And I think we have, as much 11 as we could, given the Airport Board authority to do 12 everything. There is certain areas we couldn't do from a 13 legal standpoint, or -- you know, and a few other areas. You 14 can't tax, can't bond, can't -- no eminent domain authority. 15 MR. HAMILTON: Can't accept grants without 16 approval. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't accept grants. Other 18 than that, it's pretty much a fully autonomous board. We 19 tried to make it that way. And that's what -- a lot of the 20 discussion was related to that. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One quickie, Commissioner, 22 with respect to funding. In Paragraph 5, in the event we are 23 unable to reach an agreement today with respect to the 24 funding complication of the parties, then there is language 25 in there on Number 5 that indicates that the parties are 8-6-08 jcc 7 1 going to fund the airport. It's just a matter of what the 2 formula ends up being, so as to give assurance that the 3 airport is not going to go without funding. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And on the funding issue, the 5 budget that's presented to both the City and the County in 6 future years for funding, if, worst case scenario, there -- 7 it gets to be a stumbling block there, the City and County 8 are obligated to at least fund it at the prior year's level. 9 So, there's -- you know, it's a guaranteed funding mechanism 10 in there in case there is a problem on that. We -- there was 11 lots of language in the old one about what happens upon 12 breach and if one person wants to get rid of the airport and 13 all that, and we eliminated all that language talking about 14 sale of non-terminating party and compensation to the party. 15 We got rid of all that language, basically, because -- 16 because of the F.A.A. grants that we accept, we really can't 17 do that. We can't get rid of the airport; we're stuck with 18 it. We can let one or the other have it, but all those 19 obligations run with it. And it was kind of just a -- 20 basically replaced all that language, saying that we're going 21 to follow state and federal law, because it's really not an 22 option to not use that property as an airport. If we were to 23 change the use of that, we'd have to refund all of the grants 24 we got from the federal government, which would bankrupt both 25 of us together, so it's just not an option. So, it will be 8-6-08 jcc 8 1 an airport. I think those are the main highlights. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: One other issue that we did 3 not quite resolve, and deferred to both the City and the 4 County Attorney, has to do with airport zoning, as -- and as 5 it may or may not apply to the zoning ordinances that the 6 City has in place with respect to an airport district. There 7 was some uncertainty on all of our parts as to whether or not 8 Section 22 of the Transportation Code enabled the sitting 9 Airport Board to convene as an airport zoning board of 10 adjustment. We thought that was the case, but were not 11 certain that that was the case, and Mr. Hayes, I think, and 12 Mr. Emerson were going to perhaps do some research on that. 13 Can you enlighten us a little bit on that, Mike? 14 MR. HAYES: Well, I'll get with -- yeah, there's an 15 issue, and we just need to -- I think the issue is how to 16 zone beyond the city limits. Certainly, we can zone within 17 the city, but it's how to zone outside the city limits to 18 protect the airport operations, and so I'll get with Rex in 19 the near future, and we'll talk about that issue. 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: It is our desire to follow 21 whatever the Transportation Code provides for in this regard. 22 I guess some of us were harkening back to history, in that we 23 knew that under the old Airport Municipal Act, the sitting 24 Airport Board could convene itself as a board of adjustment. 25 And whether or not that is still -- we're still able to do 8-6-08 jcc 9 1 that or not, we have to refine that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the reason we got on this 3 topic is that if an airport's in the city limits, it's 4 subject to city zoning, but there's -- it goes -- there's 5 also airport zoning that goes beyond just the normal P & Z 6 type zoning, and the intent is that the Airport Board is 7 responsible for that airport zoning. How you get there, 8 we're not real sure. That's what we're trying to do. I mean, 9 it should be the responsibility of the Airport Board, and 10 we're talking about height restrictions and all that stuff 11 that goes around the airport. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me go back to the funding issue. 13 On this latest draft of the agreement, I see a lot of 14 highlighted language that -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We put in both the City 16 proposal and the County proposal, most recent as of last -- 17 yesterday afternoon. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: But if my understanding is correct, 19 the -- the consensus now is to provide in this interlocal 20 agreement that the funding shall be as determined by the 21 governing bodies or the parties from year to year, as it 22 were? 23 MR. HAMILTON: Well, we -- you know, since we 24 didn't -- since we couldn't come to agreement on the funding, 25 we didn't come to agreement on how you would do it longer 8-6-08 jcc 10 1 term. I think we -- we have in front of us in this document 2 both the City's proposal and the County's proposal, and, you 3 know, they differ. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the long-term issue, as I'm 5 sure everyone knows, we -- we cannot obligate funds beyond 6 this current budget -- this upcoming current budget year, and 7 that's pretty uniform in local government. Coming up with a 8 plan, of course, is something different. But if we're going 9 to get an interlocal agreement concerning, quote, governance, 10 unquote, and operations, it occurs to me that if we don't 11 specifically go to this year's funding, for example, this 12 coming year's funding in this interlocal agreement, we can 13 move forward with the approval or disapproval, for whatever 14 reason, of the agreement and then consider the funding issue 15 separately, is what I'm suggesting, I suppose. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that's what we said. 17 If we look on Page 6, -- 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Item 5, -- 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- I think we can almost just 22 leave the first sentence. To assure the objective of the 23 continuation of efficient airport operations, each party is 24 obligated to the other party to contribute funds for the 25 airport annual budget -- well, for the budget. 8-6-08 jcc 11 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Period. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Period. Put a period on that 3 right there. We're obligated to fund it. It may vary from 4 year to year how that's accomplished. Depends on other 5 things. And it's really -- you know, we're just -- what we 6 -- we felt that it was -- yesterday that it was very 7 important that we committed in this agreement that the two 8 owners are going to fund that airport, because we're asking 9 them to go on doing some things very differently, and they 10 need to have assurance that that funding is there, 'cause 11 they don't have any other source. And that was the intent, 12 is that it will be funded. Hopefully, we can come up with a 13 plan, long-term, that we can live with and stay by. But even 14 if we don't, we're obligated to fund that airport, and I 15 think we have to do that under state and federal law right 16 now. 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We had originally talked 18 about that particular sentence in Number 5 that is saying 19 that we're obligated to the other party to commit funds for 20 the airport budget, as detailed in exhibit whatever. And 21 exhibit whatever is -- is an ongoing document from year to 22 year, based on the funding obligations of the other. If 23 that's an appropriate approach. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, from a legal standpoint, I 25 guess the issue is, if you're going to put the funding in -- 8-6-08 jcc 12 1 even in an exhibit here, you got an incomplete document until 2 such time as you get the exhibit. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's true. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: So, I guess my approach here is to 5 take the details of the funding out, put in a requirement 6 that the parties are obligated to provide adequate funding 7 for the operation of the airport, and as the Airport Board 8 may require, and -- reasonably require, but just stop it at 9 that. And -- 10 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: -- then we'll consider the funding 12 separately, I think is probably the best way to go. We're in 13 a position to do that, I think. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's fine. That's fine 15 with us. 16 MAYOR BOCK: Judge, is that a complete different 17 agreement upon another contract and a funding agreement, as 18 we do for the library and the others, to where it would be 19 outside, separate? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 21 MAYOR BOCK: For example, in this -- today's agenda 22 item, it would be up with the airport and animal control. It 23 would be another issue, separate. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Exactly. Because what we're doing 25 here is -- is an interlocal agreement that, long-term, up to 8-6-08 jcc 13 1 what, 2018, I believe? 2013, and automatically renewable. 2 But our funding can only be from year to year because of 3 legal constraints. 4 MAYOR BOCK: Right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And then we -- we'd handle the 6 funding in such amounts and in such ratios or proportions as 7 we may agree upon, along with these other items. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, also, under duration 9 of agreement, just making reference to that, while the 10 termination date was 2013, I believe we agreed to five-year 11 increments. Is that correct, Councilman? It said one. 12 MR. HAMILTON: Okay. 13 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That should be changed to 14 five-year terms instead of one-year terms. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 16 MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: With the same -- with the same 18 cancellation, and 90 days? 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 20 MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 22 MR. HAYES: Judge, if you're talking about -- 23 certainly, you can't fund beyond one year. Five -- and I 24 understand five may go away. I'm just having a broad 25 statement, but there's also a termination provision in here 8-6-08 jcc 14 1 that says you can terminate in any year; you just -- you're 2 stuck with that current fiscal year. So, that -- that gets 3 you outside of that, so this wouldn't lock you into a 4 five-year funding mechanism. You could still -- you know, 5 down the road, a year, two years from now, you could -- one 6 of the parties could terminate this agreement for the end of 7 that current fiscal year. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Locks you into the 9 mechanism, not the amount. 10 MR. HAYES: Right. Right. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 12 MR. HAMILTON: One of the things we discussed is, 13 it's highly likely that the Airport Manager, whoever it may 14 be, will be hired under some sort of a contract. That will 15 be a multi-year contract that will probably have some sort of 16 termination clause in it, with a severance amount in the 17 event the contract is not fulfilled to completion. That -- 18 that will represent -- and we'll try to put words in it, but 19 that will represent a commitment of funds, at least to the 20 extent of the severance amount that would go beyond the 21 budget for the years. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Represents a contingent 23 liability for the board. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: It would occur to me that possibly 25 in the contract with the -- with the Airport Manager, there 8-6-08 jcc 15 1 probably needs to be a bail-out clause in there, with 2 possibly a severance item attached to it, that in the event 3 that the -- the agreement is terminated, and no further 4 provision is made for the continuation of that Airport 5 Manager -- I don't see that as any sort of a possibility, but 6 it -- I can't see the board -- I can't see their having the 7 ability to commit funds beyond where we can commit funds, is 8 where I'm coming from, I guess. 9 MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. The way -- when we discussed 10 it, the way we feel this happens is you sign a multi-year 11 contract, but if you look at it from an accounting viewpoint, 12 the only commitment you really have, having given notice that 13 you don't intend to employ the Airport Manager any further, 14 is the severance settlement. Which then, as Bill points out, 15 can be put on the books of the Airport Board as a contingent 16 liability. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Right. 18 MR. HAMILTON: And that deals with it. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 20 MR. HAMILTON: So, in the one sense, they're 21 obligating funds beyond the current budget. In another 22 sense, we've got a way of dealing with it; we put words in 23 here to allow that to happen, and it's with that specific 24 case in mind that we did that. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's a sufficient 8-6-08 jcc 16 1 bail-out. I think that'll handle it. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yeah. 3 MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's the way we were 5 talking about. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, on the proceeding, I 8 mean, if everyone is -- there's a couple of options here. I 9 think Bill and I have a slightly different -- Bill probably 10 wants to approve this today. I'd rather wait and get 11 everyone -- till we meet on Monday, and y'all meet tomorrow 12 and Tuesday, I mean, being City Council, to let everyone read 13 it, and then approve it at that time. Certainly no later 14 than next Tuesday. Or we can do it today, I think. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: How much -- how much clean-up in the 16 language do you think there's going to be needed in order 17 to -- 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing I see -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: -- take a look at it today? 20 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Only thing I see is the 21 refinement of the zoning issue, as to whether -- you know. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: There's the zoning issue, the 23 budget language that we pretty much just worked out, and that 24 one change in the term, five -- from one year -- 25 MR. HAMILTON: One to five. 8-6-08 jcc 17 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- to five. So, those -- I 2 mean, and two of those are taken care of, really. The zoning 3 is the only one that's going to need to be resolved. 4 MR. COLEMAN: Mike, you circulated a copy to us 5 four or five days ago of the version -- 6 MR. HAYES: Right. 7 MR. COLEMAN: -- that you had some e-mail comments 8 on. Are your comments incorporated in this version? 9 MR. HAYES: Yes, they are. 10 MR. COLEMAN: Okay. 11 MR. GROSS: I think the zoning issue is not a tough 12 one to clear up. We can just put language in that says -- 13 that says aviation-related zoning pursuant to Chapter 22 of 14 the Transportation Code. Could we not do that? 15 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's -- Councilman, I 16 think that's part of it. The other part is making certain 17 that -- well, two things. Can the Airport Board sit as a 18 zoning -- airport zoning board of adjustment, yes or no? If 19 yes, fine. If no, how -- how is that dealt with? Is it 20 dealt with through the City's current or existing zoning 21 board of adjustment, or is there some different mechanism? 22 If we can get a handle on that, we got it. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But Chapter 22 is going to 24 spell this out. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: No, it doesn't. No, it 8-6-08 jcc 18 1 doesn't. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Doesn't spell it out? 3 MR. HAYES: It addresses zoning, certainly. Says 4 that -- you know, that this -- that zoning is a part of the 5 function of this board, but I think it also -- there's also a 6 chapter in the Local Government Code that -- that allows 7 local government entities to create a zoning board specific 8 to airport issues. And in our case, that's important, 9 certainly for the City, because we -- you know, the airport 10 has some areas outside of the city limits that, you know, I 11 think everyone's addressed here that we want to get a handle 12 on. And so I just need to share with Rex how I read the 13 statutes, 'cause there are two statutes in play. There's 14 Chapter 22 and the Local Government Code chapter, and Rex and 15 I just need to address that. But I think, you know, you all 16 are on the same page about what you want to do. It's just my 17 opinion right now is, I don't think this board by itself can 18 act as that zoning board. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 20 MR. HAYES: I think it's got to be a separate 21 entity. But I'm willing to talk -- you know, certainly 22 consider what Rex has to say when he looks at that issue. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, you can do the same 24 thing; you can say Chapter 22 and the Local Government Code. 25 You cite both references, then be done with it. 8-6-08 jcc 19 1 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You could. 2 MR. MOTHERAL: Mike, is your concern that the board 3 -- the Airport Board can't or shouldn't be appointed as the 4 zoning board of adjustment for the airport? 5 MR. HAYES: My concern is, the way the language is 6 in there now, I don't think it -- by just kind of some 7 general language, it talks about this board's going to 8 consider zoning. I don't think that will enable or authorize 9 this board to act as a zoning board. That's my first 10 concern. My second concern is the way I read the statutes, I 11 don't think this -- this board can act as a zoning board. I 12 think you're going to need a separate board to do that, and 13 so -- and it could be a separate board in the sense that it 14 could be this -- the same members, but they're just -- 15 they're constituted as another -- as another board. 16 MR. MOTHERAL: In a sense, that was my question. 17 Couldn't the same members be -- 18 MR. HAYES: Appointed. 19 MR. MOTHERAL: -- appointed to two separate boards? 20 They close one meeting, open another meeting, whatever. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's kind of where I've 22 been coming from all along. The sitting Airport Board could 23 convene itself as the airport board of adjustment, separate 24 meeting. 25 MR. HAYES: Yeah. 8-6-08 jcc 20 1 MAYOR BOCK: In turn, then, Mike, would the same 2 thing apply if the City Council were to do away with our 3 Z.B.A. and become a Z.B.A., allowing -- in your opinion, will 4 state law allow you to do that? Or do we have to appoint 5 separate -- 6 MR. HAYES: You have to appoint separate. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: See, in my mind, I mean, I just 8 want the Airport Board to be responsible for the airport 9 zoning around there. They very well may not want to do it. 10 They may want the city Planning and Zoning board to do it, 11 but what my fear is, is that if it's not addressed somewhat 12 here, who's responsible for it, P & Z normally isn't going to 13 be that involved with the airport, and who knows how things 14 go down the road. You know, if P & Z isn't looking at things 15 out there because it's outside the city limits, someone needs 16 to be looking at it. And if the Airport Board chooses to 17 say, "P & Z, y'all are doing that," well, then they know that 18 they're doing it. I just don't want something to fall 19 through the cracks. 20 MR. HAMILTON: I suppose we have another issue 21 here, too, which is the property that is outside the city, 22 but within whatever the airport requirements are, how do we 23 enforce it? I don't think we have a way of enforcing it. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Airport can. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Airport board of adjustment 8-6-08 jcc 21 1 could. 2 MR. HAYES: That airport zoning board. I mean, 3 that's the way you set that up; you design that airport 4 hazard zone, and then that board is responsible for that 5 zone, and they have enforcement authority. 6 MR. HAMILTON: Okay. 7 MR. HAYES: And that's the issue. We got to set up 8 this board, I think, to get beyond the city limits, you know, 9 so that -- 10 MR. COLEMAN: I guess, Mike, what would this board 11 do? It's a fairly narrow slice of activity -- 12 responsibility, right? 13 MR. HAYES: It would just regulate uses in this 14 airport zone. 15 MR. COLEMAN: We are going to be dictated by 16 F.A.A., correct? 17 MR. HAYES: Well, there's going to be some local 18 control over that. I mean, you're going to have to go 19 through some analysis and some planning. I mean, it's going 20 to be a plan to show what areas outside of the airport, you 21 know, are essential for -- for, you know, controlling so that 22 you're not, you know, limiting or damaging or whatever, the 23 use of the airport. I mean, the airport is what it is. And 24 as Jonathan described yesterday, you don't want, you know, a 25 six-story building going in, you know, certainly beyond the 8-6-08 jcc 22 1 airport limits, but in a way that it's going to affect flight 2 planning and all that stuff. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: As an example -- real-world 4 example, Martin Marietta's developing a mine right across 5 Highway 27. 6 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If they wanted to put some 8 facilities right up there on their high ground -- little bit 9 of high ground they have that would impact the airport, 10 someone needs to be watching that before it gets built. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Exactly right. 12 MR. MOTHERAL: If they put a radio tower up there, 13 for example, on the background, it most likely would 14 penetrate the side slopes of the approach to the airport, and 15 that would be a problem. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And because it's outside the 17 city limits, I want to make sure that we're covered, that 18 someone is looking out for that. 19 MR. COLEMAN: Authority to do that would be the 20 Airport Board. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, it sounds as though we've got 22 -- got some more tinkering to do. Let me ask the members of 23 the Airport Board, they -- you just got the copy of the 24 proposed -- of the most recent draft. Would you feel more 25 comfortable waiting until next week and -- and have the 8-6-08 jcc 23 1 ability to come back with questions, concerns, or thoughts at 2 that point in time? 3 MR. KING: I'd like to read through it. I mean, it 4 has all the marks that we were looking for, I think, that we 5 had requested and asked for in the past. And I can't speak 6 for Roger, but I would assume we would have to have an 7 agreement between the board as to how the management of the 8 Airport Manager goes. 'Cause we've discussed that in the 9 past, that only two members of the board would have direct 10 oversight over the manager. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: That would seem -- 12 MR. KING: Would that be an in -- I would assume 13 that's an inside document? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Internal. 15 MR. KING: Internal document? Okay. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 17 MR. KING: I think that zoning -- zoning board 18 probably would best fit with the airport. The F.A.A. has 19 ultimate control over a lot of that. They have -- if there 20 is a penetration, they have control over Martin Marietta and 21 that type, but someone has to call it to their attention. 22 They're not out, you know, rolling the area normally. So, 23 that would seem to be the feasible way to do it. Roger can 24 comment. 25 MR. BOBERTZ: Yeah, I have spoken many times about 8-6-08 jcc 24 1 some concerns I have about the reporting and relationship 2 between the Airport Manager and the Airport Board. I know 3 that, you know, the four gentlemen have worked long and hard 4 on a recommendation, and I think it's time for me to shut up. 5 So -- 6 MR. GROSS: If you'd have been to the meetings, you 7 wouldn't refer to us as four gentlemen. 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge -- 9 MR. BOBERTZ: I would welcome an opportunity to 10 read the rest of it and comment on it, but I don't believe at 11 this point, it's going to be essential. I would like to see 12 progress made so we can get on about our business. We need 13 more members, and then we can get on to some of the important 14 things we haven't done. We need to develop road management 15 strategies. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, if we are of a 17 mind -- collective mind to move forward, we could adopt this 18 with the understanding that zoning language, as agreed to by 19 the City and County Attorney, will be incorporated in this 20 document. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: And we've got -- we essentially took 22 care of the five-year. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And the funding, a broad, general 25 statement with a period at the end of it. 8-6-08 jcc 25 1 MR. COLEMAN: Bill, me let me ask one final 2 question on P & Z. Paul, is there any reason from the City 3 standpoint that it should be either/or? 4 MR. HOFMANN: On the zoning question? 5 MR. COLEMAN: On the P & Z. 6 MR. HOFMANN: Well, now, Councilmember Coleman, you 7 raise a good question. I wasn't going to bring it up in this 8 forum, but that's exactly what I was just whispering to Mike 9 here. There -- there is a combination of both legal and 10 policy issues at play here, and it may be you guys all have 11 one mind and there's some consensus on who ought to be making 12 those zoning district decisions. And we've talked about 13 Z.B.A. and P & Z here. Now, in terms of the enforcement of 14 the zoning ordinance, that's not a Z.B.A. or a P & Z 15 responsibility. That's a City Council responsibility. P & Z 16 makes recommendations to the City Council on zoning district 17 decisions. Creating the districts or amending the districts, 18 that's not delegated to P & Z; that's a state law thing. 19 That's a City Council decision. And the Z.B.A. handles 20 adjustments, and it is not in the mix of establishing or 21 amending the districts. 22 And, so -- and I know from a little bit of 23 experience, although this has been a few years ago and maybe 24 the law has changed, that one option out there in the 25 establishment of this entity that has zoning authority 8-6-08 jcc 26 1 outside the city limits relative to the airport, that can be 2 the City Council, just to let you guys know that. It can be 3 part of your zoning ordinance and be part of your authority, 4 if that's what you wanted to do. Or you can create another 5 entity, whether that's the Airport Board or another entity 6 like the Airport Board, that has that authority. I think you 7 -- I think you have that option. And, again, I'm not the 8 attorney in the room, but I've seen that work where I worked 9 before. So, that just makes me think -- I think you have 10 that option, and just to throw that out to the City Council, 11 and that may be something that Mike and Rex look into a bit 12 more, if -- if that makes sense, about the creation and the 13 amendment of the zoning districts. Today, that's the City 14 Council. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: But we're not talking about zoning 16 districts. 17 MR. HOFMANN: Yeah, you are. Actually, you are. 18 MR. MOTHERAL: Wait a minute, Paul. Wait a minute. 19 We're not talking about changing zoning districts. The 20 federal government has set up a zoning policy on these 21 things. It is not that we, the City Council, or anybody else 22 are going to go out there and establish new zoning districts. 23 If and when that area is annexed, yes, we will. 24 MR. HOFMANN: I might respectfully suggest that 25 yeah, you -- you are. That the -- there will need to be the 8-6-08 jcc 27 1 establishment of zoning districts. And, you know, the 2 community took a shot at this in the '70's, I think. There 3 are maps out there today that speak to these zoning districts 4 outside the city, but outside -- but around the airport. 5 But, yes, and Mike spoke to this earlier in response to a 6 question someone had. It has to follow some parameters, but 7 there's a local decision here either to create new districts 8 or confirm the districts that are out there. There's -- it's 9 about land use, and it's about locally creating those 10 districts, yes, sir. 11 MR. GROSS: Correct me if I'm wrong, but this is 12 more like an overlay district. 13 MR. HOFMANN: You can look at it that way, yeah. 14 That's a little technical, but yeah, sure. 15 MR. GROSS: I wouldn't expect that there would be a 16 lot of business going to the airport zoning board. 17 MR. HOFMANN: You know, and somebody else made that 18 point, too, about how this is a narrow slice. 19 MR. GROSS: Mike? 20 MR. HOFMANN: Once you establish the districts, 21 then you're dealing with amendments as development happens. 22 It's not a big workload issue. 23 MR. GROSS: Just for the sake of simplicity, it 24 might be better to keep it with City Council. 25 MR. HOFMANN: Something to think about. That's my 8-6-08 jcc 28 1 only point in mentioning it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And, again, the only reason I'm 3 bringing it up is 'cause when Martin Marietta came through 4 the City, someone on City staff sent Martin Marietta a letter 5 that said it was not their jurisdiction. And that letter 6 concerned me, because -- 7 MR. HOFMANN: Floodplain. That wasn't about 8 zoning, Commissioner Letz. That -- and this has been about a 9 year ago, so I'm speaking from memory. That was about 10 floodplain administration, and that was the context of that 11 letter, and that was the question we were being asked. And 12 we don't -- some cities effect floodplain management outside 13 of their city within their ETJ, but the City of Kerrville 14 doesn't, and that was the question we were asked. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 16 MR. HOFMANN: And that's what was said. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Was it the four of you that met? 19 When you talked about this zoning function, what did -- did 20 y'all have a consensus about whether the board should do that 21 function or some other group should do that function? 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the board should be 23 responsible for it. 24 MR. GROSS: I think we were wanting aviation 25 experts to make aviation decisions. 8-6-08 jcc 29 1 JUDGE TINLEY: So, the consensus was that it should 2 be something that the board, either through themselves or 3 through some other designee, performed when it came to the 4 zoning issue? 5 MR. GROSS: Even if we left it with City Council, I 6 think it'd behoove the City Council to give a lot of credence 7 to what the recommendations of the board might be. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. And the board can very 9 well appoint City Council. That would be the simplest thing, 10 sounds like to me. 11 MAYOR BOCK: So, you want to leave that decision up 12 to the five-member board to make? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah. 14 MAYOR BOCK: But then it wouldn't be in this -- 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It would be up to the board, as 16 long as it complies with Chapter 22 and Local Government 17 Code. 18 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. That's what you'd put in this 19 agreement, and then let them make the determination of how 20 that is -- how that's governed? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 MR. COLEMAN: I think I agree with that, myself. I 23 didn't aim to open a lot of new issues on that question. I 24 -- I did want to make sure that we were doing everything 25 appropriately, and in the most simplistic manner that we can, 8-6-08 jcc 30 1 so I'm up to that language. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: That's okay. 3 MAYOR BOCK: Council, any further questions on this 4 item? I've got a couple, and help me -- follow me through 5 this. If we're looking at the Airport Board hiring an 6 Airport Manager, we currently have two contracts out there at 7 the airport; is that right? We have a management contract, 8 and then we have a -- this will be a governance contract. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: This is a governance agreement. 10 MAYOR BOCK: A governance agreement. And then -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Management contract. 12 MAYOR BOCK: -- the management contract. As it 13 sits, then, the board would determine all of the requirements 14 that the manager would have to do on an RFQ basis, or a -- is 15 that -- that, in itself, is -- is -- we're going to leave 16 that to the board to make that -- 17 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Board function from this 18 point forward. 19 MAYOR BOCK: Board function to make those 20 determinations, here's how we want to do it. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: They'll fashion the next 22 RFP or RFQ or whatever for services. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They hire an Airport Manager, 24 and then they decide how they're going to handle -- get 25 everything else done, whether they continue the same 8-6-08 jcc 31 1 relationship or hybrid or whatever they want. 2 MAYOR BOCK: Now, in this agreement, does it say in 3 here, or did I read in one draft that this agreement takes 4 effect immediately? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 6 MAYOR BOCK: For this year? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think it does say 8 immediately, and then they have -- and there's 15 days, I 9 think -- 10 MR. HAYES: Board has to meet within 15 days to get 11 appointed. This agreement basically reconstitutes what -- 12 reappointing Roger and Steve, and then -- and -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fred. 14 MR. HAYES: -- Fred, and then they'll go through 15 the -- 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Within 10, 15 days. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: What about the existing contract? I 18 think -- 19 MR. HAYES: No, that's terminated. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: -- that's where he's coming from. 21 MAYOR BOCK: That's where I'm -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand that, but that 23 continues up until October 1. 24 MAYOR BOCK: Right. And, see, and currently we 25 have -- in Number 5, you know, Item 5 protects the existing 8-6-08 jcc 32 1 funding that we continue on. Well, in this time, if 2 that's -- is it reasonable to ask the Airport Board to make 3 these changes, get RFQ's out, hire a manager, and then go 4 through the process of RFQ's before the end of this contract 5 terminates so that the airport doesn't miss a beat? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that there -- we've 7 talked a lot about that issue, and I think that the funding 8 is the key, and the funding needs to be in place for next 9 year. The Airport Board's going to have to figure out 10 exactly how they're going to do it. They may -- you know, 11 that's up to them. They're -- you know, within the 12 parameters set forth in here, they may just hire an Airport 13 Manager and go with the City for everything else. I mean, 14 as-is, you know. Or they may say, you know, let's try -- 15 let's go with the City for two months and then we're going to 16 relook at things, and there's going to be a negotiation, 17 really, between the Airport Board and the City as to how that 18 gets done, 'cause the City's been doing most of those 19 services. 20 MAYOR BOCK: That's what I had in mind. But it is 21 going to cause somewhat of a problem to the City as far as 22 going into budget right now. We have -- we have to where, 23 okay, are we going to be that -- we've terminated our 24 contract, and -- and with the -- with the Airport Board. And 25 not saying that we wouldn't relook back into this, but if the 8-6-08 jcc 33 1 Airport Board gets together within this amount of time, 2 they're going to have to call the City and say, hey, you 3 know, we think -- if they so decide, "We think we want to 4 go with you guys," I don't think we're sort of structured -- 5 Paul, correct me if I'm wrong -- to do that at this point in 6 our budget process. Or are we? 7 MR. HOFMANN: The budget I proposed to the City 8 Council assumes that things stay the same. 9 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. That -- so if the Airport Board 10 said we want to stay the same for right now, we've got an 11 Airport Manager -- what if they don't have time to hire an 12 Airport Manager in that process? 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Something's going to have to be 14 worked out by the Airport Board. 15 MR. HAMILTON: I think it's safe to assume that the 16 Airport Board is going to make every effort to get a manager 17 in place and start off doing things, but that they probably 18 won't be going. They'll be in that -- they'll still be 19 working their way through decisions, in which case the City 20 will be asked to continue for several months. And as long as 21 the Airport Board is working away and making progress, I 22 think that's a reasonable thing for the City to do. Now, if 23 the Airport Board does nothing, then the City has to say, 24 "Wait a second," you know, and raise why we don't see any 25 progress occurring. 8-6-08 jcc 34 1 MAYOR BOCK: Well, as long -- I'm just trying to 2 protect the business at the airport, no interruptions, smooth 3 transition, without having any -- any leeway into, "Oh, we've 4 got to postpone this," or they've been, you know, so long 5 without two board members, they don't want to have a manager 6 out there because we don't have a management contract worked 7 out, or, "We can't get a management contract yet, 'cause we 8 don't have a manager." And -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's why I think this 10 agreement was silent on it completely, and let the -- and my 11 personal feeling is, I hope the City is reasonable -- I think 12 they will be reasonable, and between the City and the Airport 13 Board as to how that gets done in the time frame. 14 MR. KING: Todd? I think Fred, our other member, 15 brought up at the last meeting that there are requirements by 16 the F.A.A. that the airport be maintained even if there's no 17 contract. There are requirements that, with the governance 18 agreement that we have for grants -- grant assurances, that 19 the airport has to be maintained. He pretty much made it 20 very clear that you can't drop and run, because there's a 21 bigger guy over here that is looking at you. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We also recognize in our 23 discussions that the next 10 to 12 months is the transition 24 period, and they'll have to work through it. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Without everybody jumping to 8-6-08 jcc 35 1 conclusions, but working on it. 2 MR. GROSS: The maintaining, Steve, is that we 3 wanted -- we wanted to let you be in charge. 4 MR. KING: Right. Right, and we've agreed. Roger 5 and I have discussed it. Roger's very concerned about the 6 time span, the time limit. I mean, he expressed that at the 7 last meeting. We will work, you know, as hard as we can. I 8 think the manager part, we can probably, hopefully, conclude 9 with that. But, you know, getting on -- if it's -- another 10 RFP has got to go out and, you know, all that stuff, I mean, 11 I can probably say from my standpoint -- I don't know what 12 Roger thinks, but I doubt if we'll get -- I don't -- I don't 13 think that's going to happen before the date, that we can 14 come up with a plan. 15 MAYOR BOCK: That's fine with me. I just wanted it 16 to be -- 17 MR. KING: We're going to work on it, but we would 18 assume that -- just speaking from my position, I would assume 19 that the City and the County are both going to continue to 20 work in their best interests to keep the airport funded, 21 because, like I said, they do have some responsibility to the 22 federal government because of the amount of money they spent 23 at the airport. You can't -- you can't let the airport -- 24 there's certain agreements that have been made. You can't 25 let the airport go into -- you know, fall apart. 8-6-08 jcc 36 1 MR. BOBERTZ: I think, also, we need to recognize 2 the possibility -- in my mind, the probability -- that we 3 will not have a new Airport Board constituted in time to make 4 these decisions before October 1st from a standing start. We 5 need to solicit applications for board membership. Then 6 we'll probably need to go through a second process to 7 recommend -- make the recommendations to the two governing 8 bodies. They will need to make their determinations, and 9 it's difficult for me to imagine that's going to get done by 10 October 1st. 11 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: We recognize that. 12 MR. KING: But we're excited. I mean, this is -- 13 this is what we've asked for. And -- 14 MR. BOBERTZ: Yeah. 15 MR. KING: -- I'm very proud of the four members 16 that have worked very diligently to get this far, and I think 17 both parties should be commended for their work. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mike -- excuse me. Mike, is 19 there anything that precludes the current three members from 20 making a decision on an Airport Manager? Can they start -- I 21 mean, they can start acting as soon as they're there. They 22 may choose to wait until they get two more before they make 23 that decision, but they can do it with the -- 24 MR. HAYES: Yeah, I -- well, certainly, once you 25 adopt this agreement -- I was just making notes. Those three 8-6-08 jcc 37 1 members are going to have to be reappointed, and so I -- what 2 I would suggest is when the bodies consider this agreement, 3 that you, you know, urge them -- or I think you can go ahead 4 and make those -- assuming we make those reappointments, you 5 go ahead and do that with the -- on a separate, you know, 6 action. And then they'll need to know that they can start 7 making recommendations, and -- 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Start doing things. 9 MR. HAYES: Right, start doing things under this 10 agreement, sure. But it won't be -- they won't be a full 11 board right away. 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Right. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: But the three can operate. 15 MR. HAYES: Sure, like they've been doing. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Doing the things they need 17 to do. 18 MAYOR BOCK: Under this agreement. Okay. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, even with that, I think 20 it's even probably more important to try to approve this 21 today, and then for us, on -- 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Monday. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- Monday, City Council on 24 Tuesday, to do the reappointments. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, on behalf of 8-6-08 jcc 38 1 Commissioners Court, I would offer the interlocal agreement 2 for continued existence of the joint Airport Board, and 3 provide management of Kerrville Airport -- Kerrville/Kerr 4 County Airport as discussed and amended today. And if 5 there's -- presented to you in draft, as discussed and 6 amended today. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: You offer that as a motion? 8 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Second. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second before 11 the Commissioners Court. Further discussion on that motion, 12 or any questions by any member of the Commissioners Court on 13 the motion? All those in favor of the motion, signify by 14 raising your right hand. 15 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 16 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 17 (No response.) 18 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion carries. 19 MAYOR BOCK: Council, at this time, I'd entertain a 20 motion on Agenda Item 2. 21 MR. HAMILTON: I'll move we approve the interlocal 22 agreement we have in front of us, with the change of 23 five-year renewal term -- or one-year renewal term to 24 five-year renewal term, with the caveat the funding has yet 25 to be resolved, and with the caveat that -- 8-6-08 jcc 39 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zoning. 2 MR. HAMILTON: -- that the zoning issue has yet to 3 be resolved by County. 4 MAYOR BOCK: We have a motion. Do we have a 5 second? 6 MR. GROSS: I'd be happy to second that. 7 MAYOR BOCK: We have a motion and a second. Any 8 further discussion? Any further discussion by anyone in the 9 audience? All in favor of the motion? 10 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 11 MAYOR BOCK: All opposed? 12 (No response.) 13 MAYOR BOCK: Motion carries 5-0. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 15 MR. COLEMAN: Judge, I would also -- I'd have to 16 comment, I think these four did a very good job coming up 17 with a document. I, for one, am very optimistic with the 18 fact they work very well. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Thank you. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: It's going to work. It's going to 21 be okay. 22 MR. KING: Thank you very much. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate all of you airport folks 24 coming. 25 MR. BOBERTZ: We appreciate the agenda adjustment. 8-6-08 jcc 40 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 2 (Discussion off the record.) 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me call the other agenda item 4 that I have on the -- for this joint meeting. Consider, 5 discuss, and take appropriate action to establish, in this 6 instance, Kerr County's Fiscal Year '08-'09 contribution to 7 City/County jointly provided services, including, but not 8 limited to, EMS, Fire Department, Library, Recycling Center, 9 Animal Control, and Airport. Do you want to call yours? 10 MAYOR BOCK: Yes. Judge, we'll also go to Agenda 11 Item 2 and discuss joint City/County projects, and not 12 limited to, or including the EMS, Fire Department, Library, 13 Recycling Center, Animal Control, and Airport. Has anyone 14 received the handouts from the City? I think, Josh, you 15 passed things out. Has anybody -- that's it. That's it. As 16 y'all look through these, some of these documents you have 17 seen before. And I'm going to revert back again to some of 18 the work done by the four members of the Commissioners Court 19 and City Council, including a side-by-side of the City and 20 County offers, the County's proposal and the City's. Now, 21 Jonathan, you also passed out some information today on that. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the numbers on that -- I 23 basically worked off that same worksheet, put numbers 24 together. 25 MAYOR BOCK: Judge, how do you want to do this? Do 8-6-08 jcc 41 1 you want to take them in order as they are, or would you like 2 to look at them globally, or anybody have any comments? 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 4 MAYOR BOCK: I know in the past, we've taken them 5 item-by-item, but sometimes looking at them as a full 6 package, as we attempted to do last year, sometimes helps. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think if I can just make a 8 comment on the City and the County offers, the two previous 9 ones, I mean, I think there was, for whatever reason, some 10 misinterpretation by the City of the County's offer. Not 11 important. And then we got a response back. But I think if 12 you look at the two of those, just on the second page that I 13 handed out -- and the numbers are not exact. I used the 14 exact numbers I had. Some are County projected for next 15 year, some are City's, and some are going back to last year's 16 budget, if I didn't know new numbers. But it shows -- I 17 mean, the County's proposal was very much in favor of the 18 County's position; we spend less money. The City's proposal 19 was very much in favor of the City's position. So, I think 20 we can pretty much move off of those two. I mean, neither 21 one of them are particularly good when you look at them by 22 numbers, in my mind. 23 The front page is kind of, I think, more the 24 intent, long-range plan that the County had. And that was -- 25 and it also maintained a caveat that I think the City 8-6-08 jcc 42 1 Council, or certainly Mr. Hofmann had early on in the 2 process, was that we try to keep these budget -- we don't 3 want to get way askew budget-wise. I mean, we want to keep 4 them basically the funding levels that they were last year. 5 We don't want to drop a bomb on either entity. We're trying 6 to work through some things and funding and -- and get there. 7 And I tried to do that on the -- the handout that I have in 8 there, noting some of the numbers may not be exactly right, 9 'cause I didn't know what to put in some of them. But the 10 bottom line is, they're staying pretty uniform. At the end 11 of five years, the County's paying about 200,000 more than 12 the City is, keeping certain -- most numbers pretty constant, 13 but it gets there slowly. And it also really doesn't 14 account -- I'm sure the City is going to start spending some 15 additional funds on the library, which aren't included. 16 But I think that -- I mean, there's two approaches. 17 One, we look at it globally, like we have been, or we go back 18 to doing them one at a time, and then come back globally at 19 the end. I mean, and it gets to a philosophical issue. I 20 tried to get to the point where the County was funding the 21 airport and the animal control, and the City was primarily 22 funding the library. And -- and to get there, you have to do 23 it in small steps. Trying to do it in one year, to me, on 24 any -- anything is unreasonable to the other entity, 'cause 25 it just puts too much of a financial burden to do it in one 8-6-08 jcc 43 1 year. 2 MAYOR BOCK: Jonathan, I'm looking here at what you 3 have, and what I'm looking at here on the front page of your 4 proposal is the -- going back to the airport, now, the 5 funding of the airport is five-year phasing out of the City? 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 7 MAYOR BOCK: And in the library, you have here 8 the -- is that a reduction? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Reducing it to 200,000, and 10 then there's an escalator in there that -- of -- I think it's 11 3 percent. 12 MAYOR BOCK: A 3 percent, okay. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- basically, it's doing 14 the City and the County's previous proposal, but extending it 15 out, doing it over time, as opposed to doing it right up 16 front. I think the numbers are basically the same. I mean, 17 you've -- in the proposal from the City, the library, 18 200,000, and the County took over the airport and animal 19 control. I think the end of the planning, it gets to the 20 same spot, but it takes us a while to get there, because I 21 think it's too hard to do it too quick. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: The airport, the phase-down, that's 23 only M & O. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Correct. 25 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes. 8-6-08 jcc 44 1 MAYOR BOCK: Right. That's correct, right. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: The capital, because of the joint 3 ownership, would remain a fifty-fifty contribution. Any 4 capital expenditure. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: I guess that's what that C.I. -- 7 "50 percent C.I." Is that what it is, capital improvements? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yes. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's the problem with 11 spreadsheets, trying to cram all this information on one 12 page. If -- the areas that are -- you know, the library is 13 kind of what we've been -- both parties have been talking 14 about. So is animal control and airport. I will note that 15 animal control budget has gone up substantially, but, you 16 know, it's just personnel and the costs of that operation are 17 increasing. EMS probably is an area that I think we're, 18 long-term, fairly different still from what the City and the 19 County proposal is. And I have 48/52 that was -- I don't -- 20 there's a formula that goes into that. I'm not really sure 21 what that formula is, as to how the EMS was broken up in the 22 past, but I know last year the County paid 52 percent of the 23 deficit and the City paid 48 percent. And I know the 24 proposal that came back from the City was to change that to 25 the County paid 75 percent and the City paid 25 percent, 8-6-08 jcc 45 1 which I've got a little bit of a problem with, but -- 2 MR. HAMILTON: Well, yeah. See, the whole position 3 here centers on, should a citizen in the city be paying twice 4 for the same service? That's -- that's the whole discussion. 5 And -- and we can talk about phasing this thing in, and, you 6 know, might be doable. But is it -- is it reasonable to have 7 a city citizen being paying twice for the same service? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't think they are. Mack 9 and I, we have talked about this to ourselves, and he and I 10 just have a different philosophy on this. I think that is -- 11 there's a very different level of service for the city for 12 most of these areas. And there's things that the county 13 residents pay that are outside of the tax base; they pay out 14 of private funds, such as wells, fire, donating to volunteer 15 fire departments. None of those numbers are captured, but 16 there are services that are being provided by the City, and 17 the county -- or non-city residents are paying those. So, 18 you know, until we can come up with some sort of a -- a true 19 mechanism that looks at sales tax, looks at fire donations, 20 things of that type, I think it's a -- it doesn't make any 21 sense to me to even have this discussion. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: You also have to look at 23 services that are provided by the County that -- that are 24 never -- never included in the City's budget. One that comes 25 immediately to mind is the indigent health care. 8-6-08 jcc 46 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And the jail. 2 MR. HAMILTON: Part of the entire county. 3 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I understand that. We're 4 all county residents. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think that, you know, if the 6 City Council and the Commissioners Court -- to me, if City 7 Council wants to pursue Councilman Hamilton's point of view, 8 then I think you need to look at putting before the city 9 voters if they want to get rid of their streets department, 10 their fire department, the EMS, and the -- and law 11 enforcement, and let the County take over all of those. And 12 if the city residents want that and know what that means, 13 then I think at that point, the County should look at it. 14 But until then, it's a very -- it's a totally different 15 issue, and I just don't think that, you know, you can start 16 piecemealing, saying, "Well, we're going to pick these 17 services and try to make the County pay for all of them." 18 You have to do the whole thing, and I don't think the city 19 residents want that, from those that I've talked to that are 20 also my constituents. 21 MR. MOTHERAL: Jon, I got a question. If you 22 would, please, on the EMS, on the back page, the City's 23 proposal, if you total the columns, the City and County 24 columns, then you go to the front page, total City and County 25 columns, they're not the same. The total dollars should be 8-6-08 jcc 47 1 the same, and the -- 2 MAYOR BOCK: On Jonathan's? Back page? 3 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: EMS -- I took -- 5 MR. MOTHERAL: 397,000 is on the City's total, and 6 then on your column it's 345,000. I don't know what the 7 difference is, or why there is a difference. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Where are you? On what year? 9 MR. MOTHERAL: I'm sorry. I was over in the 10 right-hand column. We can do any column. I don't -- I just 11 picked that in the right-hand column. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I have 259 for the County. 13 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And 138 for the City. 15 MR. MOTHERAL: Right. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Then it says -- 17 MR. MOTHERAL: 380 -- 397. Then you go up on the 18 front page to the EMS, and the same column -- and in the same 19 right-hand column, and you total those two, and they're 20 different. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't ask me, I just made up 22 the chart. I'm not sure what happened. It's -- the idea -- 23 the intent was, when I did it, that across the front it would 24 say 48/52 percent, and I kept the deficit constant as what it 25 was, the numbers that I had that were proposed for this year 8-6-08 jcc 48 1 by the City. That was what was supposed to be in there, and 2 obviously I did a calculation wrong. But I think the 3 fundamental issue is how you divide the EMS deficit. 4 MR. GROSS: No, maybe we should -- you're onto 5 something. You said we could look at this globally or pick 6 it apart. We're really good at picking apart. I think we 7 ought to think a little bit more globally. If you're -- 8 you're essentially saying we're going to put in the same 9 amount of money that you guys do, library's going down, 10 airport's going up. Depends on which side of the fence 11 you're on, but the bottom line is, you're -- you've got 900 12 -- 2009-2010, 961 and 921; that's essentially the same 13 amount. 2010 and '11, 941 and 941; that is the same amount. 14 Assuming that your numbers are right. And maybe we ought to 15 just regard these whole things as a constellation of shared 16 services or shared -- shared services, and just say we're 17 going to kick in. Give this money to the City; we'll figure 18 out what to do with it. Is that too simple? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, if you look at the coming 20 budget year, there's about $80,000 difference, according to 21 what Jon -- I realize Jon's figures are not totally on 22 target, but -- but they're going to be moving towards that. 23 MR. GROSS: Right. 24 MR. HOFMANN: Judge, if I might, when you just said 25 $80,000 difference, you were comparing what to what? 8-6-08 jcc 49 1 JUDGE TINLEY: The bottom line, 981 and 901. 2 08-09. 3 MR. HOFMANN: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I will say, the problem is 5 with the numbers that I'm not sure I didn't plug in the -- 6 the city numbers that I didn't have for this year. So, I 7 mean, there's -- you know -- well, there are a couple 8 examples. First, all the airport numbers are picked up from 9 the current budget, so we have no idea of what the -- what 10 the airport budget will look like, totally. I have an idea, 11 but we don't know what the total exact number is. And the 12 other is animal control. That number we refined today, and 13 it is higher than -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Not much. About $7,000 is all. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's a -- 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's 342. That's about seven 17 grand over the budget, isn't it? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's been adjusted since; we 21 took some of that capital outlay out. They're going to pay 22 for it. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: About five grand, okay. It's about 24 230. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But going back to Scott's view 8-6-08 jcc 50 1 for philosophically, I'm somewhat in agreement as to where 2 we're trying to go. Then you plug in the right numbers. It 3 seems the totals are -- and it's not going to be the real 4 numbers. I mean, we'll give that to Josh and Jeannie and get 5 it out of, you know, my bailiwick. You know, it just depends 6 on where we're trying to go. It's easier from my standpoint 7 if we don't have to go through these long discussions every 8 year. 9 MAYOR BOCK: Jonathan, I agree. And I feel like, 10 number one, with the airport governance, we just did that. 11 We took that out of the equation, as far as a reoccurring -- 12 a rewriting. We look -- that was a good, positive move 13 across the board to come up with a solid, long-term plan. 14 Now we look at funding agreements here. And if -- if we take 15 Mr. Hamilton's assumptions that the city and the county 16 residents are paying, that's going to come up with one 17 calculation. If we use what we're using that you and Scott 18 are talking about, that's going to be a global -- that's 19 going to be, okay, this money's going here, and we're not 20 going to really look into where it's going. We're going to 21 use the same formula year after year. If you go back and you 22 look at fire, you look at EMS, we've tackled this so many 23 different ways. We finally have -- with the exception of the 24 disparity, we finally have a process I think is working, as 25 far as how it's funded. Reinventing the wheel every year, I 8-6-08 jcc 51 1 think, is the part that gets everybody. Once you start 2 opening -- reinventing and going through it again, it leaves 3 room for change, and we're going to modify this and change 4 this, which we have the ability to do, both governing bodies 5 do. But looking at it, you know, Scott too, and in a global 6 aspect, and we need to kind of decide, okay, if -- if we're 7 not going to change these numbers up to take care of the 8 disparity, okay, then how are we going to attack this? 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I agree. And I think 10 the -- I mean, I thought that EMS I thought was more 11 confined. There's some formula that some people at this 12 table understand. 13 MAYOR BOCK: Well, it's actually better -- it's 14 actually both -- both bodies. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, better, because the 16 deficit is less than projected. 17 MAYOR BOCK: The raising of the rates, and -- 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fire, you know, it's -- we're 19 just buying a truck and half an ambulance or something like 20 that, whatever we're buying, but we're -- you know, that's 21 resolved. The ones that are really left are library, 22 airport, animal control. And the desire is for the County to 23 reduce and get pretty much out of the library business, and 24 to help offset that cost, we'll pick up animal control, which 25 we're fine with; that's our entity. And then to make up 8-6-08 jcc 52 1 those other dollars, the airport is pretty similar. 2 MR. GROSS: I've been feeling kind of foolish 3 negotiating with the airport, because every dollar we get on 4 the airport is a dollar I didn't get on the library, so 5 instead of the right pocket, left pocket, and I felt stupid 6 doing it. 7 MR. COLEMAN: I guess my -- it may be similar to 8 what you're saying. My perspective, when I look at this five 9 years out, and the only thing we really have to worry about 10 is the library and EMS, I kind of like that. You know, 11 that's positive. That's very good. That's positive stuff. 12 I -- I personally think Mack did a -- a good job with this 13 analysis to show -- to show the city/county imbalance, and it 14 concerns me; that we need to make sure, collectively, as city 15 representatives, that we're doing a good job with the city 16 citizens, and that bothers me. I don't -- I don't know that 17 we are doing as good a job as we probably should. However, 18 that being said, I don't necessarily think this is where you 19 fix it, either. I think we need a -- a better, more 20 long-term approach on how to fix that, and I don't know what 21 it is. I really don't. I'm open to suggestions on that. 22 And I guess -- I guess what I'm saying is that I really 23 support this fifth year out; I like that. I think that's 24 very positive, very good. 25 MAYOR BOCK: What's that, Chuck? 8-6-08 jcc 53 1 MR. COLEMAN: The fifth year out in Jonathan's. 2 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the fourth year out 4 better. Somehow the County got the short end in the fifth 5 year. But, anyway -- 6 MR. COLEMAN: The other thing that does concern me 7 is the -- the budget increase for animal control. That is 8 pretty significant. I'm not sure I understand all of the ins 9 and outs of that, but that's kind of my understanding, too. 10 Is there a way to move the fifth year up to the third year? 11 (Laughter.) 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I think that's that incremental 13 thing he was talking about, Chuck. 14 MR. COLEMAN: That's kind of still incremental. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: It's just a larger increment, right? 16 MR. COLEMAN: That's right. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: It's not incremental, is it, if it's 18 one increment. 19 MR. HAMILTON: Well, let's pursue the animal 20 control issue. That's -- I'm assuming Jonathan's numbers are 21 right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They're a little bit off, by 23 7,000, basically. 24 MR. COLEMAN: My only concern about that, that's 25 showing more dollars from the County in this fifth year than 8-6-08 jcc 54 1 there might be otherwise. 2 MR. HAMILTON: It's also showing, from last year to 3 this year, over a 50 percent increase. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You know, this is part of 5 the -- 6 MR. HAMILTON: Is there a reason for that? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Part of that is, in this 8 year's -- or last year's -- current year numbers, roughly 10 9 percent goes to Ingram. I didn't pull out their part in the 10 future year's, 'cause I didn't -- 'cause we had not, as a 11 Commissioners Court, decided how we were -- what we were 12 going to do with that, so that's part of that increase. And 13 the other part of it is staffing, fuel, -- 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Equipment. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- equipment. It's just -- 16 they're real cost increases. 17 MR. HAMILTON: You're going from 215 to 342. 18 MS. HARGIS: 291. 19 MR. HOFMANN: Mr. Letz, in '09, are you netting out 20 revenues? Because you did in '08. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, I'm not doing any future 22 years. '08, does -- does it out of -- as an increment. 23 MR. HOFMANN: Well, how far -- and, Council 24 members, just to kind of keep you up on where we are relative 25 to the budget I presented last week, looking at this handout, 8-6-08 jcc 55 1 that '09 column for what the city contribution would be, and 2 it's because of the animal control number. Everything is 3 pretty much in alignment with the budget I recommended except 4 for the animal control number. Our budget, based upon our 5 reading of Judge Tinley's letter and what we knew about the 6 animal control budget, assumed a city expense of 62,000, and 7 this assumes a city expense of 142,000, so we're off $80,000 8 compared to the budget. 9 MR. HAMILTON: What I heard in Jonathan's number, 10 all the costs we've been showing are net costs. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not trying to pull a fast 12 one. I did this last night after we got home. I was up late 13 last night trying to put this together, and I was pulling 14 from whatever I had at my home office. I mean, and that's 15 why I said -- 16 MR. COLEMAN: Where's the impact? It's just the 17 animal control? 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Animal control is the one that 19 I didn't net out the revenue side, and I didn't take out 20 Ingram because I ran out of space on my computer. And my 21 wife told me to go to bed. (Laughter.) 22 JUDGE TINLEY: It was past your bedtime, was it? 23 MR. HOFMANN: And so, if we might suggest, without 24 having those numbers in front of us, there was -- you get -- 25 what we tried to do with my budget recommendation to Council 8-6-08 jcc 56 1 was follow the intent described in Judge Tinley's letter. 2 And if there's some consensus that we ought to follow that, 3 we can get with Jeannie and do the math and see what that is. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- one other thing on that, 5 and I think it was just the way it's probably just worded. 6 On the airport, it was a 10 percent reduction. Well, really, 7 it was a 20 percent swing. It was -- it's -- County went up 8 10, City went down 10, so it was a 20 percent change, not a 9 10 percent change, each year. It ended up at zero, and the 10 way I think the proposal that I saw -- got coming back from 11 Todd was only getting 50 percent of that captured. I think 12 it was probably the wording in the letter from the Judge. 13 MR. HOFMANN: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, there's a difference there 15 in pretty significant dollars. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, the City's share would 17 decrease by 20 percent each year. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: After -- after this current budget 20 year. Not beginning this current budget year, but -- this 21 upcoming budget year, but after that. And -- and it is the 22 assumption that -- that on animal control, we net out the 23 revenue. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: And then, in essence, this -- what 8-6-08 jcc 57 1 would otherwise be the City's contribution would be cut in 2 half this coming year after doing that? 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I -- 4 JUDGE TINLEY: Was that the intention? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The intent that I did here was 6 that we -- I didn't net out anything, obviously. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, you didn't have the numbers, 8 but, I mean -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And didn't take out Ingram, but 10 I just -- I looked at the total, and trying to get down to 11 zero, and I just put arbitrarily the County at 200,000, City 12 at 142. There was no magic. I just kind of tilted it so the 13 County was paying more of that portion. Because in the past, 14 it wasn't -- last year, I think it was the other way around a 15 little bit. Maybe it was the same. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I think you're correct, 17 Judge, in that our -- at least my understanding was we took 18 -- we took the net operational cost, and we identified the 19 City's previous contribution or the current contribution. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: As per the existing contract. 21 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Yes, sir. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: And then cut that in half. 23 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: And reduced the City's 24 contribution or commitment by 50 percent this coming budget 25 year, and the remaining 50 percent the second budget year, 8-6-08 jcc 58 1 forthcoming. 2 MR. HOFMANN: Council members, that was the logic 3 we followed when we recommended our budget. That's how we 4 got that -- that $62,000 number. 5 MR. COLEMAN: Let me come back and explore this 6 third year thing. Jonathan, look at your schedule. If you 7 look at that fifth year out, let's just assume that there's 8 100 grand worth of revenue. Assume that y'all were, 9 ballpark, a million and we were 780. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's going to affect the both 11 of us; revenue's going to come off both sides. 12 MR. COLEMAN: Just reducing. But if you come -- if 13 you come to your fourth year, there's a slight difference 14 there, and not a lot of difference. And if you come to your 15 second or your third year -- your first, second, third year, 16 it's all basically break-even. I mean, it's the same amount. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 MR. COLEMAN: I guess my point is, if we move that 19 fifth year up to the third year, it's really not costing you 20 guys that much future money. 21 MAYOR BOCK: In other words, expedite the process? 22 Let's do it a three-year phase-in? I -- that's good. 23 MR. COLEMAN: It's really more -- and it is simply 24 down to two areas we have to worry about. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Sure, I don't have a problem 8-6-08 jcc 59 1 with that. I think, actually -- but if you -- but you're 2 talking about moving the -- yeah, you're talking the two -- 3 yeah, I understand what you're saying. I don't have any 4 problem with that at all. I think what we need to do, if 5 that's the direction both bodies want to take, then we turn 6 it over to Josh and Jeannie and let them put the numbers in 7 and see what it really looks like. Because our numbers could 8 be -- there could be a pretty big swing in my numbers. 9 MR. COLEMAN: And, intuitively, I don't think it 10 would be. I agree it would be prudent to do that, but I 11 think it would come up right close. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It would be prudent to have 13 correct numbers to go forward with. (Laughter.) 14 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Thank you, Commissioner. 15 MR. COLEMAN: Don't y'all beat up on him. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean, to me, 17 the most important thing really is to philosophically just 18 ask where we're going. We did it for the City to have the 19 library, us to have the other two, animal control and 20 airport, from a funding responsibility standpoint. 21 MR. COLEMAN: And to me, Mack's analysis still 22 bothers me. In my execution of my responsibility to the city 23 residents, I just -- I do -- I am concerned that we're -- 24 we're not doing enough for them, and if we were able to do 25 this, I would -- I would feel a lot better about it, 8-6-08 jcc 60 1 personally. 'Cause I know that we can't -- we can't wave a 2 magic wand and have it total parity. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jeannie thinks my numbers are 4 way off. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you're spending a million 6 dollars for one fire truck a year, that's a little 7 overspending, I believe. 8 MR. HAMILTON: We would appreciate your telling us 9 how to reduce our costs. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you don't have four 11 fire stations, for one. Excuse me, I'm sorry. 12 MR. COLEMAN: But I -- I think we're pretty close 13 to something there, myself. You guys agree or disagree? 14 MR. HAMILTON: I don't know what to say, because I 15 -- the numbers aren't the right numbers, so I'm -- I'm back 16 at ground zero, I suppose. 17 MS. HARGIS: I don't think we can take a $100,000 18 jump, either, not for this year. 19 MR. COLEMAN: Say that again, Jeannie? 20 MS. HARGIS: Jumping to the fifth year might be 21 pretty tough on us this year. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No, we go to the fifth year in 23 three years. 24 MR. COLEMAN: Yeah. We do the phase-in over three 25 years. 8-6-08 jcc 61 1 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 2 MR. COLEMAN: From this year. 3 MS. HARGIS: Okay. 4 MR. COLEMAN: And in year three, it would come out 5 with the intent that we have in year five over here. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's worth looking at. I think 7 you look at it both in the fifth year phase-in and three-year 8 phase-in with the real numbers. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Looking at these numbers, the animal 10 control's going to drop off the second year. The third year 11 you'd be absorbing the 88,000 up there with the airport, 12 because you've -- the phase-out of animal control would have 13 already occurred. 14 MS. HARGIS: Let me state that the revenue from 15 animal control is not very much. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, they know that, yeah. It's 17 still -- the practice has been to net it out and to go on 18 that basis. 19 MR. COLEMAN: And, again, I don't think it's going 20 to have that big of an impact. Again, I think we'd -- all 21 we'd be doing is achieving something sooner, rather than 22 later, and that works for all of us in terms of eliminating 23 all the various steps that we have to negotiate every year. 24 And when we've got the airport done, then we'll be there. 25 MAYOR BOCK: Well, I guess, Chuck, that leads me to 8-6-08 jcc 62 1 one of my questions. When we're looking at the airport here, 2 we're -- the airport is a -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 4 MAYOR BOCK: We're breaking down the airport into 5 the same three-year phase-in, is that correct? 6 MR. COLEMAN: Mm-hmm. 7 MAYOR BOCK: And staying with the City and the 8 County both pay 50 percent of capital improvements? 9 MR. COLEMAN: Right. That's kind of off this -- 10 that's off record -- that's off negotiation, 'cause we're 50 11 percent owners, and we just keep it that way. That's never 12 been something we've had to consider in the past, anyway. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, I'd like to look at the 14 numbers both with a three-year and a five-year phase-in and 15 see what the difference is with accurate numbers in there, 16 because I -- you know, if it doesn't have a huge budget 17 impact, three is certainly better. But I want to see what 18 the impact is, and to both. I mean -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: With real numbers. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, we need to get the real 21 numbers in there. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Net it out. And, you know, if 24 I would have gone to another file at my office, I could have 25 found the airport proposed budget, but I didn't. Like I 8-6-08 jcc 63 1 said, I was told to go to bed, so I didn't do that. So, I 2 used last year's numbers for the airport, and we have the 3 real numbers. 4 MR. HOFMANN: They're awfully close. 5 MR. HAMILTON: You're good on the airport. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Gentlemen, take note that Jon is -- 7 he's in good health and doesn't appear to be injured in any 8 manner. It might be well that his wife tells him to go to 9 bed at the appropriate time. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You don't understand. The 11 reason I was told to go to bed was, the light in my office 12 was keeping Sam up and he wasn't going to bed. That was the 13 problem. She couldn't care less about me going to bed. 14 MAYOR BOCK: As we look at this on the library, I 15 know this phases out to a -- roughly a flat $200,000 in 16 2010-2011. We need to also look at that, I think, Council, 17 on how that's going to -- that's -- that would put us in a 18 one-year fiscal disadvantage. Is that right, Paul? Am I 19 looking at that -- 20 MR. HOFMANN: Well, again, not to belabor, you're 21 at a fiscal disadvantage in '09 with these numbers. 22 MAYOR BOCK: Right. 23 MR. HOFMANN: By about $80,000. But after -- 24 MAYOR BOCK: Are you talking about total, globally, 25 or are you talking -- 8-6-08 jcc 64 1 MR. HOFMANN: I'm talking about total, yes, sir. 2 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. Different from what you 3 budgeted -- what we have started in the budget process? 4 MR. HOFMANN: Uh-huh. 5 MAYOR BOCK: An additional $80,000. 6 MR. HOFMANN: Because of the animal control number. 7 And I recognize that -- 8 MAYOR BOCK: Well, okay. 9 MR. HOFMANN: -- the numbers need to be refined, 10 but it probably won't be refined a lot, if I follow the 11 discussion. 12 MR. HAMILTON: What is the reason -- you know, I 13 can understand fuel, but how much of animal control's budget 14 could the fuel be? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: We added personnel. Personnel 16 increases. And we also -- in the past, we were being donated 17 all the food, and that's no -- that was taken off. It's lots 18 of little things that hit this year. There's no new vehicles 19 in it; there's no equipment or capital improvements. It's 20 just -- it's -- there is a proposed -- I think everyone is 21 probably aware of it; the County has proposed an 22 across-the-board 10 percent salary increase for employees. 23 Actually, I think it was in the paper. 24 MR. HOFMANN: I think it would be appropriate for 25 me to point out that in the past, at least for as long as 8-6-08 jcc 65 1 I've been here, when the City would propose funding 2 contributions from the County for services provided by the 3 City -- airport, library, EMS, or fire -- and we would use 4 those funding formulas, we would always be careful to say and 5 implement that we were holding the County harmless for any 6 increases that following fiscal year if we were adding staff, 7 if we were adding to salaries. We always based those 8 formulas on what we call a base budget, without those 9 increases. And I just point out that factor to the City 10 Council, that that's always how we have approached that. 11 There was always discussion about staff costs and salary 12 increases, but those funding formulas never put that burden 13 for a future budget on the County. That was consistently the 14 way we approached that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I understand what you're 16 saying. So that whenever you came and the new fire 17 department -- new station wasn't open, that none of that cost 18 is attributed into the budget? 19 MR. HOFMANN: It is for fiscal -- it is for fiscal 20 '09. But -- 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 22 MR. COLEMAN: One-year lag basis. 23 MAYOR BOCK: And the library, too. 24 MR. COLEMAN: The impact doesn't hurt. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Some impact. 8-6-08 jcc 66 1 MAYOR BOCK: We did that mid-year implementation. 2 MR. HOFMANN: And Josh is reminding me, your 3 example on fire stations and Fire Station 4, fire -- your 4 funding formula has nothing to do with how many firefighters 5 we have or how many stations we have. It has -- we're 6 allocating the cost of the service we provide. That is one 7 truck. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Fire was a bad example. 9 MR. HOFMANN: Okay. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's see where we are here. 11 MR. HOFMANN: Or good example, depending on the 12 point you're trying to make. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: We need the accurate numbers based 14 on this model on the animal control, the -- the -- basically, 15 the formula that was spelled out in my letter of June 16 of 16 50 percent of what the allocated net cost of animal control. 17 But we need the accurate numbers to crunch for a three-year 18 goal and a five-year goal here. I guess my question is, how 19 long will that take? 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Shouldn't take long at all. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me tell you where I'm coming 22 from. Can we recess this meeting until later this afternoon? 23 Tomorrow sometime? I think we've got a 24-hour -- don't we 24 have a 24-hour drop-dead? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Don't they meet tomorrow? 8-6-08 jcc 67 1 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: So, we can come back and look at 3 those and maybe get these issues resolved. 4 MR. GROSS: Could we do that in an hour? 5 MAYOR BOCK: Judge, we're posted, actually, 6 tomorrow. If -- if this afternoon didn't work, I know if you 7 have 24 hours, we actually are -- are posted -- is that 8 right? -- for tomorrow to discuss -- 9 MR. COLEMAN: For City/County. 10 MAYOR BOCK: City/County, so we would be good 11 either way. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: As an action item? 13 MAYOR BOCK: As a -- 14 MR. HOFMANN: I don't know that it's posted for 15 action, but we could get your direction. 16 MAYOR BOCK: On Thursday? 17 MR. COLEMAN: And the recess thing works, too. 18 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Recess works. That way 19 it's action. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If we recessed until right 21 before that meeting, then give time to get the numbers put 22 together, and y'all are going to meet anyway. 23 MAYOR BOCK: We're going to be together tomorrow 24 morning anyway. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: That's in the morning? 8-6-08 jcc 68 1 MAYOR BOCK: 8:30. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We're doing ours this 4 afternoon. (Laughter.) 5 MR. MOTHERAL: Buster doesn't want to get up at 6 8:30. 7 MR. GROSS: I don't think it's unreasonable to 8 break for a couple of hours. Shouldn't take that long. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: If it can be done in two hours, 10 Scott, I'm with you. 11 MR. GROSS: How long would it take you to do it? 12 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I'm available to come back. 13 Let's come back. 14 MR. COLEMAN: Our session is a discussion with 15 regard to operational funding. 16 (Low-voice discussion off the record.) 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather do it today. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Get it over with. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: I think both of us are posted for 20 action today to nail these down if we can. 21 MR. GROSS: An hour? 22 MR. SELLECK: We've got to get back to the offices, 23 crunch the numbers together, and then -- 24 MR. GROSS: I've got a pencil. 25 MR. SELLECK: Hour and a half? It's the accuracy 8-6-08 jcc 69 1 of the numbers. If y'all are comfortable just seeing 2 formulas and plugging in some -- some dummy numbers for now, 3 and then you want to vote on formulas and plug in -- 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'd rather have the numbers. 5 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Get the numbers. 6 MR. HOFMANN: The outstanding number is animal 7 control, right? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is that the only one? 9 MS. HARGIS: The EMS one? 10 MR. HOFMANN: No, we know the EMS. EMS is -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: The net deficit. You know what? 12 This is pretty close. 13 MR. HOFMANN: We know what that is. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And we got the airport budget. 15 MR. HOFMANN: I think we've got good, solid numbers 16 on everything except animal control. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I'm close on the library, 18 I'm close on EMS, I'm close on the airport. 19 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, you are. Yes, within -- 20 MR. GROSS: Call the office and get the animal 21 control numbers. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: All we have to do is get the 23 net revenues, deduct those on the proposed budget. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And move it. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And Ingram, pull Ingram out 8-6-08 jcc 70 1 of the deal. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Why don't -- why don't -- what's the 3 thought about recessing, say, till 2:30? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Yeah, that would work. 5 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Judge? Can I mention one 6 thing real quick to Councilman Hamilton? I noticed a while 7 ago that Jonathan mentioned about the County trying to do a 8 10 percent for all county employees; you kind of shook your 9 head and looked a little like that's a little wild. I would 10 like to make one comment to that, okay? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I don't know that that -- that's on 12 our agenda. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You can make it in private to 14 him later. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That's not on our agenda. 16 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Judge, would it be 17 appropriate to advise council of our action with respect to 18 the reverse notification system and the cost, just so 19 everybody hears what the cost is? 20 JUDGE TINLEY: When we go into recess, if everybody 21 will sit in place for another 60 seconds, that might work. 22 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: How does that sound? 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Sounds like it's doable. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioners Court will be in 8-6-08 jcc 71 1 recess until 2:30. 2 MAYOR BOCK: City Council will take a recess until 3 2:30 also. 4 (Recess taken from 1:40 p.m. to 2:51 p.m.) 5 - - - - - - - - - - 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay, let's come back to order for 7 our joint meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and 8 Kerrville City Council. We've got some new figures we're 9 looking at here. What you see is a three-, four-, and 10 five-year phase-in. These are going the wrong direction for 11 me to -- they're not going the same direction as the -- as 12 the others. You're going down, you're not going over, right? 13 Okay. 14 MR. SELLECK: Would y'all like me to go through one 15 of these and walk you through how we worked it? And then 16 that should apply to the rest. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: I would. 18 MR. SELLECK: We built this similar to how 19 Commissioner Letz had built his original spreadsheet, since 20 that was the one we dealt with the most. And, again, you 21 have Fire, EMS, Library, Airport, Animal Control on the 22 left-hand side of the three-year phase-in. We show fiscal 23 year '08; that's current budget year, but then the first year 24 where we begin the phase-in is FY '09. You can see on a 25 three-year, we actually kept the library even. Air -- or, 8-6-08 jcc 72 1 sorry, library, with what we've talked about with the County, 2 going down to 400, City keeping the 419. Airport remains 3 even at 187 each. Animal Control uses the formula as 4 proposed in the Judge's letter. As of June 16th, Fiscal '10, 5 County reduces library to 300, City bumps to 519. Airport 6 gets reduced for the first time. Animal Control picks up 7 the -- the next phase of the phase-in. And for FY '11, then 8 we see that -- we see that we're at the fifth year column, I 9 think Councilman Coleman referred to it, by FY '11. We used 10 a similar phase-in for the four-year phase-in and the 11 five-year phase-in. What we tried to do with the bottom two 12 rows on each of these scenarios, we've given you a row that 13 represents the change from the prior year. You'll notice in 14 most cases, FY '09 is a bit different than the FY '10 15 columns. FY '10 and '11, for most of these, should be even. 16 And FY '12 and '13, it depends on which phase-in scenario 17 you're at. We also give you a change from cumulative -- or a 18 change cumulative row. This shows you, by the end of the 19 five years, how much cumulatively has changed since FY '08. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Josh, on your numbers, on the 21 sums, did you add the fire in? 22 MR. HAMILTON: Yes, he did. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That's what makes this 24 number -- I didn't add them in, 'cause that was kind of a 25 different -- 8-6-08 jcc 73 1 MR. SELLECK: Right. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because it wasn't something 3 coming from the city standpoint. 4 MR. HAMILTON: Right. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So this actually looks better 6 for both entities with the real numbers. 7 MR. HAMILTON: Mm-hmm. 8 MR. SELLECK: As far as inflation goes, we know 9 that on the fire contract, we talked about increasing it in 10 FY '10 by 3 percent and using the C.P.I., but in terms of 11 this type of analysis, we held inflation as a constant, and 12 as a result -- 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Simpler. 14 MR. HAMILTON: Kept the same total every year. 15 MR. SELLECK: Yes, sir. 16 MS. HARGIS: We tried it the other way, but it was 17 real distorted. 18 MR. HAMILTON: Yeah. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: If you don't do it for all of 20 them, -- 21 MR. SELLECK: Right. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- you shouldn't do it for any 23 of them. 24 MAYOR BOCK: Paul, if this were year '09 under 25 animal control, we budget 62,000? 8-6-08 jcc 74 1 MR. HOFMANN: Yep -- yes, sir. And that's the only 2 real difference. 3 MAYOR BOCK: Okay. 4 MR. MOTHERAL: So, we're 30,000 different. 5 MR. HOFMANN: Yes, sir. 6 MS. HARGIS: I tried to fix that, but I couldn't 7 get it. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: No, that was based on last year's 9 number, wasn't it, Paul? 10 MR. HOFMANN: Yeah. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. That's what I thought, yeah. 12 MR. SELLECK: This doesn't add revenues. They 13 still -- 14 MR. HAMILTON: And, of course, in looking at this 15 very narrow, we're ignoring 1.2 -- 16 (The reporter asked Mr. Hamilton to speak louder.) 17 MR. HAMILTON: We're ignoring 1.2 million, just as 18 shown here, which is the nonrecurring one being on here for 19 -- in FY '09 to '10. 20 MR. COLEMAN: The capital portion. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 22 MR. COLEMAN: And, Josh, again, the only real 23 changes to these schedules, especially the top one, is the 24 fire was not previously added in. We've added that in now. 25 So, to kind of come back to our first schedule, we could back 8-6-08 jcc 75 1 off the amount of the fire from the total and kind of see 2 where we're at. 3 MR. SELLECK: Yes. 4 MR. COLEMAN: And the amount of the animal control 5 revenue, but otherwise, it's apples and apples. 6 MR. SELLECK: Yep. 7 MR. COLEMAN: I still think it looks good for year 8 three. 9 MR. HAMILTON: Maybe we can do a two-year phase-in. 10 MR. COLEMAN: Well -- 11 MR. MOTHERAL: I told you. 12 MS. HARGIS: Now, Mack. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Mack, I told -- I told you when I 14 asked for a four, just to have another option, I stayed 15 within the window, if you'll remember, of the three and the 16 five. 17 MR. MOTHERAL: And on the airport, are we still 18 contemplating the fifty-fifty on C.I.P. portion? 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Capital, yes. 'Cause we remain -- 20 MR. MOTHERAL: Yeah. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: -- joint owners. 22 MR. MOTHERAL: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I like the five-year better. 24 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: I do too. 25 MR. HAMILTON: Well, any of them give the City a 8-6-08 jcc 76 1 problem in current fiscal year. 2 COMMISSIONER WILLIAMS: Gives you a problem for 3 what? 4 MR. HAMILTON: For FY '09, any one of the three. 5 MR. COLEMAN: But, now, Jonathan, if you take, say, 6 in year one, 1,137,000 for you guys and back off that 180, 7 we're much closer to a parity there. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right, we're 900,000 versus -- 9 MR. COLEMAN: And the same thing for year two and 10 three. I mean, that -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 MR. COLEMAN: That does come back -- it's a lot 13 closer. We're talking fairly small bucks, I think, and we 14 can all be heroes and get this thing fixed, with no further 15 issues for debate. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: In five years. 17 MR. COLEMAN: Well, in three. (Laughter.) We can 18 be superheroes in three years. 19 MR. HAMILTON: If we made the City revenue-neutral 20 for '09, which is against the numbers the City's been using, 21 which is about a $30,000 change, and you used the three-year 22 phase-in, I think that's -- you know, at the end you can say, 23 you know, against my argument of disparity, what you've moved 24 is the total of the two numbers at the end. We've moved 25 134,000 plus 159. In other words, County's paying 134 more; 8-6-08 jcc 77 1 the City's paying 159 less, so you're really moved from the 2 numbers. We're looking at two hundred and -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: 95. 4 MR. HAMILTON: Close to $300,000. 5 MR. COLEMAN: That's a good point. Excellent 6 point. 7 MR. HAMILTON: And that's the way to look at it, I 8 think. And, you know, if the City were -- were -- if the 9 number for animal control for '09 were the 60 that the City's 10 using -- what are we using exactly, Josh? 11 MR. HOFMANN: 62. 12 MR. HAMILTON: So, if that were 62, then the 13 three-year phase-in is -- is a solid attempt towards removing 14 the disparity. I'd support that. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Jeannie, where -- what's the 16 impact on the County, these numbers, on the current budget 17 for the County, the AR recommended? 18 MS. HARGIS: I don't know exactly what I have on 19 the airport. That's the only one we need to probably plug 20 in. But I used the 62,5 already as revenue, and that -- that 21 would -- and then I think I can use the 215,000. See, that's 22 less than -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, we're -- this is pretty 24 close within our -- I mean, within 30,000, 40,000 of what 25 we've got budgeted? 8-6-08 jcc 78 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Which one of those are you looking 2 at, Ms. Hargis? Three, four or five? 3 MS. HARGIS: On the third one. I'm just looking at 4 the numbers in the County column of '09, which are the same 5 in all years. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you looking at the three-year? 7 MS. HARGIS: Well -- 8 MR. HAMILTON: Well, first one will be the same in 9 all of them. 10 MS. HARGIS: I'm just looking at what our charge 11 would be for '09, which would be the same in all three 12 columns -- the first column. In the second column, actually, 13 we go up on the airport higher. 14 MR. SELLECK: Let me -- on the three-year phase-in, 15 we assumed that the airport stays the fifty-fifty split for 16 Fiscal '09. Yeah, I'll call it clerical, if anything. It 17 wasn't fully intentional, but as we built the first one, we 18 kept it fifty-fifty, and then phased it in Fiscal '10 and 19 Fiscal '11 for three-year phase-in. When we moved down to 20 the four-year phase-in, the five-year phase-in, we actually 21 started the phase-in in Fiscal '9. But, again, the numbers 22 that -- that probably are most significant, though, are the 23 Change from Prior row, and the Change Cumulative row. That 24 actually showed the three-year phase-in with fiscal '09 to be 25 a bit more swallowable, I think for the County, at least. As 8-6-08 jcc 79 1 you move through years two and three, it would -- it's less 2 beneficial as compared to the four and five year. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, that -- 4 MR. SELLECK: Do you see what I'm saying? 5 JUDGE TINLEY: I know exactly what you're saying. 6 That was my concern, that the first-year impact is greater in 7 both four and five than in -- than in the three-year plan, 8 and the three-year is more of a level impact; 54, 40, and 40, 9 whereas -- and I couldn't figure out why, but you've 10 identified it. At the airport on all of them in FY '09, it 11 should reflect the same numbers under the airport as it does 12 under the three-year plan. Is that -- 13 MR. SELLECK: You could. That's part of the -- 14 that was part of the issue, trying to knock this out so 15 quickly. And, again, it wasn't intentional. It does provide 16 a nice level track in the three-year phase-in. You could do 17 the same thing in the four-year and the five-year, but it 18 would change the numbers from what we've shown here. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, actually, you get a decrease 20 in the second year in both four and five. You show a credit 21 actually in the -- in the -- for two years, and then in four 22 you get another big hit, 'cause it jumps 82. And in the 23 five-year, it jumps 65. 24 MR. SELLECK: That's the dynamic that's provided by 25 -- regardless of which schedule -- we kept the library on the 8-6-08 jcc 80 1 proposed schedule that the County had given us with 400, 300, 2 200, 200 level, so that's the dynamic that's arising out 3 of -- out of that part of the schedule, is what you just 4 talked about. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, but that's occasioned by the 6 airport -- 7 MR. SELLECK: Mm-hmm. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: -- being equal under '09 -- under 9 the three-year plan, but -- but the disparity in the '09 in 10 the four- and five-year phase-in. 11 MR. SELLECK: That's right. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah, mm-hmm. 13 MR. COLEMAN: You know, the airport is a bit of an 14 unknown. Somebody mentioned during the break that it's 15 possible the airport -- airport costs could go down. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: That's what we're all hoping. 17 MR. COLEMAN: That's right. They can go up, but if 18 we've got a unified airport board taking control of that 19 operation out there, there's a chance that it could go down. 20 Coupled with the fact that you -- if you think that we're in 21 the bottom part of our economic slump and we're going to 22 begin to climb out of it and have more growth and development 23 out there... 24 MR. HAMILTON: Yeah, but I would suspect -- I would 25 suspect in the first year, there's going to be some overlap 8-6-08 jcc 81 1 between the city services, including the present Airport 2 Manager and the newly hired Airport Manager. 3 MR. COLEMAN: I agree with that. It would be a 4 transition. 5 MR. HAMILTON: None of that's in our budget, 'cause 6 we haven't -- 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 8 MR. HAMILTON: So that's -- I'd be very surprised 9 if the airport budget number for '09 -- 10 MR. COLEMAN: No, I don't think for '09, but I do 11 think potentially for '10 and '11, it's possible. 12 MR. HAMILTON: I like that. 13 MR. COLEMAN: And, Mack, back to what you were 14 saying earlier. You were basically saying this apparent 15 revenue or positive that the City is picking up, the 79,000, 16 in '09, you were willing to neutralize that? 17 MR. HAMILTON: No. What I'm saying is that the 18 numbers in here for the City, in our mind, are pretty much in 19 accordance with what we've budgeted, except for animal 20 control, which is 30,000 -- 31,000 over. And so if, for '09, 21 we made Animal Control the same as last year, 62,5, and if 22 you adopt that three-year, that seems to me a reasonable 23 proposition. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be a good horse trade from 25 the City. 8-6-08 jcc 82 1 MR. COLEMAN: Well, not only -- and I don't 2 disagree with that at all. That's a good point, coming back 3 and looking at it. I don't believe, if we look at it in 4 three years and only have two items to deal with -- 5 MR. HAMILTON: Well, maybe -- maybe on the City 6 side, we need to just make a motion. I move the City accept 7 the three-year phase-in, with the revision that Animal 8 Control for '09 be 62,500 payment from the City to the 9 County. Anybody want to second? 10 MR. COLEMAN: I would second that without the 11 62,000, but as it just was presented. 12 MAYOR BOCK: Can I throw something in there? Is it 13 possible, then, if we -- we adopt -- we effectively adopt the 14 three-year phase plan, we leave '09 at 62, and we shift the 15 30K over in to FY '10? 16 MR. COLEMAN: I'm good with that. The number would 17 be the same. Calendar -- it's just timing. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'm not sure I'm good with 19 that. I mean, 'cause we have the same budget concern or 20 impact as you all do. I mean, we're not like we're flush 21 with money in the county. 22 MR. HAMILTON: No, I think we understand that. 23 But, you know, on the city services, one of the strikes that 24 I have we didn't really discuss. We've done our best to 25 reduce them. I mean, the airport's flat from prior year, EMS 8-6-08 jcc 83 1 is down, library is down. So -- and what we're seeing on 2 animal control is a significant increase. So, you know -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I hope you're not suggesting 4 we're not trying to keep that budget down under control. 5 We're just providing better service with more people, and we 6 got more certification and we have a lot better facility with 7 a lot more use. And I hope you're not suggesting that we're 8 trying to inflate those numbers, 'cause we're not. 9 MR. HAMILTON: Well, I'm pleased they've come down 10 from the prior numbers. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: The numbers are what they 12 are, just like your numbers. 13 MR. COLEMAN: And I do know there's been a lot of 14 focus on the animal control for the last two or three years. 15 I know there's -- there's concern from the citizens. Back to 16 your original motion, if -- if we made it such that it was 17 for the three years, it might have a good shot. (Laughter.) 18 I was trying to think of a good way of saying that. I just 19 couldn't. 20 MR. GROSS: And you didn't. 21 MR. HAMILTON: Well, we got two other councilmen to 22 hear from, and the mayor, I suppose. 23 MR. MOTHERAL: Do we need to either second the 24 motion or -- or let it die before we discuss it? 25 MR. GROSS: Waiting to see what the mayor says. 8-6-08 jcc 84 1 MAYOR BOCK: If there was a second to that motion, 2 then we can -- we can discuss it. If it dies for lack of a 3 second, then -- 4 MR. GROSS: I'll second it. 5 MAYOR BOCK: -- we move on. 6 MR. GROSS: I'll second it. 7 MAYOR BOCK: We have a motion and second. Any 8 further discussion? 9 MR. COLEMAN: Well, point of discussion. I would 10 like to offer an amendment, that we leave animal control as 11 it is. Although the point that you raise is an excellent 12 point. Just for the sake of simplicity and avoiding 13 complexity, in the concept, I'd rather just leave it out of 14 there and -- and go forward with the three-year phase-in as 15 it's presented. Would you accept an amendment such as that? 16 MR. HAMILTON: Sure. 17 MR. COLEMAN: Thank you. 18 MAYOR BOCK: We have an amendment to the motion. 19 Do we have a second? 20 MR. GROSS: I'll second it. 21 MAYOR BOCK: We have a second. Let's see. I need 22 to call for a vote on the amendment first; is that correct? 23 At this time, I'll call -- any further discussion? Any 24 further clarification at this time? I'll call for all in 25 favor of the amendment to the motion, raise your right hand. 8-6-08 jcc 85 1 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 2 MAYOR BOCK: All opposed? 3 (No response.) 4 MAYOR BOCK: Motion carries 5-0. The motion on the 5 floor is to proceed with the three-year phase-in as presented 6 by Josh for the City/County joint -- what did you call it, 7 Mack? 8 MR. HAMILTON: Shared services. 9 MAYOR BOCK: Shared services, thank you. We have a 10 motion and a second. Any further discussion? All in favor 11 of the motion, signify by raising hand? 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 MAYOR BOCK: All opposed? 14 (No response.) 15 MAYOR BOCK: Seeing none, motion carries 5-0. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: You had a 3:15 appointment, didn't 17 you? 18 MR. GROSS: Yeah. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: We need to see what the Court's 20 going to do, then, right quick. 21 MR. GROSS: I'll be late. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I'll make a motion that the 23 Commissioners Court accepts the three-year phase-in for the 24 shared services as presented. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Second. 8-6-08 jcc 86 1 JUDGE TINLEY: I have a motion and a second that 2 the Court approve the three-year plan for City/County shared 3 service costs. Questions or discussion on the motion? 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: It's -- I expect -- I guess the 5 statement is, the intent is this is the plan for future -- 6 for the next three years funding, just not a commitment, as 7 we're not allowed to do that, but it is a plan. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Can't legally make that commitment; 9 we all understand that. Further question or discussion on 10 the motion? All in favor of the motion, signify by raising 11 your right hand. 12 (The motion carried by unanimous vote.) 13 JUDGE TINLEY: All opposed, same sign. 14 (No response.) 15 JUDGE TINLEY: That motion does carry. Thank you, 16 gentlemen. Any further business to come before the Court? 17 MR. COLEMAN: Thank y'all. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nay. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioners Court will be 20 adjourned. 21 MAYOR BOCK: Council will be adjourned. 22 (Joint County/City meeting adjourned at 3:13 p.m.) 23 - - - - - - - - - - 24 25 8-6-08 jcc 87 1 STATE OF TEXAS | 2 COUNTY OF KERR | 3 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 4 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 5 County Clerk of the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 6 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 7 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 12th day of August, 8 2008. 9 10 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 11 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 12 Certified Shorthand Reporter 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 8-6-08 jcc