1 2 3 4 5 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 6 and 7 KERRVILLE CITY COUNCIL 8 Joint Meeting 9 Wednesday, January 19, 2011 10 8:00 a.m. 11 Kerr County Sheriff's Annex Training Room 12 402 Clearwater Paseo 13 Kerrville, Texas 14 15 16 17 18 Kerr County Commissioners Court: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 19 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 GUY R. OVERBY, Commissioner Pct. 2 20 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 21 22 Kerrville City Council: DAVID WAMPLER, Mayor 23 BRUCE MOTHERAL, Mayor Pro Tem STACIE KEEBLE, Councilmember, Place 2 24 SCOTT GROSS, Councilmember, Place 3 GENE ALLEN, Councilmember, Place 4 25 TODD PARTON, City Manager 2 1 I N D E X January 19, 2011 2 PAGE 3 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to establish Kerr County's contribution(s) or 4 method(s) of determining such contribution(s) to City/County jointly provided services or 5 operations, including, but not limited to: EMS, Fire Department, Library, Recycling Center, 6 Animal Control, and Airport 3 7 --- Adjourned 45 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 1-19-11 jcc 3 1 On Wednesday, January 19, 2011, at 8:00 a.m., a joint 2 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court was held in 3 the Commissioners' Courtroom, Kerr County Courthouse, 4 Kerrville, Texas, and the following proceedings were had in 5 open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Good morning. Let's go ahead and 8 get started. On behalf of the County, let me call the joint 9 meeting of the Kerr County Commissioners Court and Kerrville 10 City Council to order, posted and scheduled for today, 11 Wednesday, January 19th, 2011, at 8 o'clock a.m. It is that 12 time now. Mayor, you want to call your bunch to order? 13 MAYOR WAMPLER: On behalf of the City of Kerrville, 14 I'd like to also call this meeting to order this morning on 15 the 19th of January at 8 o'clock. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: The agenda item -- we're missing one 17 commissioner and one councilperson, I think. Hopefully 18 they'll come in shortly. Administratively, I really need to 19 be leaving here about 9:15, so I'd like to move this thing 20 forward if we can. I've got a meeting I need to attend at 21 9:30. The agenda item is to consider, discuss, take 22 appropriate action to establish contributions of City of 23 Kerrville and Kerr County or methods of determining those 24 contributions to the City/County jointly provided services or 25 operations, including, but not limited to, emergency medical 1-19-11 jcc 4 1 service, fire department, library, recycling center, animal 2 control, and airport. While I've not seen it -- I may have 3 it, and then just haven't seen it -- I was put on verbal 4 notice that the City of Kerrville was going to serve notice 5 of termination of the existing interlocal agreements that 6 we're presently operating under for the various joint 7 operations and services, with the idea in mind to renegotiate 8 those agreements. Hopefully -- and, like I say, while I 9 haven't seen it, I assume that Council took the appropriate 10 action at its meeting this last Tuesday to, in fact, do that. 11 That being the case, it occurs to me that -- that, you know, 12 the methodology of proceeding is probably the first thing 13 before us, and just throw it out here. 14 Off the top of my head, it occurs to me that 15 possibly, with the City initiating this termination and 16 wanting to renegotiate, certainly, in order to get this thing 17 moving, it may be appropriate that they provide us with a 18 proposal, as it were, on each of these various functions, as 19 to what they desire or want in proceeding forward on a joint 20 basis. And, of course, if there are any figures or facts to 21 substantiate whatever position they're advocating, that they 22 provide us with those figures, with the opportunity to have 23 our respective bean counters, numbers crunchers, whatevers, 24 review those figures and go in and look at the raw data and 25 be satisfied that -- that they, in fact, are empirical data 1-19-11 jcc 5 1 and are accurate, and substantiate that position. Some of 2 you may have other ideas, and I throw it out to you. 3 MAYOR WAMPLER: Judge, thank you for hosting us 4 today and for the willingness to discuss these important 5 matters for our community. And I agree with you that 6 certainly today, sitting down, basic principles in terms of 7 what we can do and how we should continue to work together is 8 very important. Process is -- is also an important 9 consideration, to the extent that we can come to an agreement 10 today about how to move forward, hopefully under the deadline 11 that we discussed in your office a couple weeks ago, knowing, 12 being cognizant of the fact that we both have budget issues 13 and we're going to -- you know, the new fiscal year will be 14 here before we know it, really, from a planning standpoint. 15 And so we wanted to make sure that both sides had as much 16 time and room to maneuver as humanly possible, having just 17 gone through the holidays and so forth. I think your 18 proposal is a good one with regard to -- we're certainly 19 happy to sit down and come up with a plan in terms of getting 20 talks started. 21 One thing that would be helpful to us, though, I 22 think in the interim -- maybe we can discuss it to a certain 23 point today, although I didn't anticipate we would get too 24 deep into things -- is particularly on emergency services, 25 knowing or having some idea of what the County Commissioners 1-19-11 jcc 6 1 envision in terms of service levels going forward. If it's 2 the same as has been provided in the past, enhanced or 3 reduced, that's something that we'd like to talk about, 4 whether it's today or in the future, as part of that process. 5 We certainly can -- can provide a proposal that entails the 6 level of services being provided today as a starting point, 7 and then work backwards. But if you all have some ideas now 8 or, you know, as we're going through this process, that would 9 be helpful to us. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Mayor, I'm not sure that -- that we 11 were aware there were different levels of services that could 12 be provided. I just assumed that whatever level of service 13 you provided to residents of the city of Kerrville would be 14 the same as what you would provide to Kerr County, those 15 outside the city. So, I guess the first thing we'd want to 16 take a look at are, what are the various levels of services 17 available? But lacking something else, it would seem to me 18 that continuation of the same would be appropriate. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, can I make a comment? 20 Going back to one of the first things the Mayor said, and my 21 understanding is that the Mayor and the City Manager had a 22 meeting with the County Judge, and I believe Commissioner 23 Overby. Because of Open Meetings issues, I have no knowledge 24 of that meeting and have not talked to the Judge about it. I 25 don't know if Commissioner Oehler has either, because it 1-19-11 jcc 7 1 would be a violation of Open Meetings for us to do that. 2 MAYOR WAMPLER: Sure. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Therefore, can you please let 4 the rest of the Court know what you told two members of the 5 Court? 6 MAYOR WAMPLER: Sure. We -- that's fair enough. 7 We met with the Judge to -- as he said, to provide verbal 8 notice, really, that we intended to terminate the current 9 interlocal agreements, with an eye towards renegotiating all 10 of those agreements, and that's essentially it. Of course, 11 we talked about, hypothetically, how to continue to pay for 12 emergency services globally through the city and the county. 13 We talked about the respective budget limitations that we 14 both are feeling. We had, you know, just a general 15 conversation about city and county joint operations. But I 16 think it's fair to say -- Judge Tinley, interrupt me if I'm 17 wrong -- that the gist of the conversation was that we're 18 providing the verbal notice, and we'll back it up with 19 writing, that we intend to renegotiate these agreements. So, 20 I mean, there really wasn't much expansion on that, other 21 than just the general situation that we find ourselves in 22 mutually, and certainly, a -- a commitment by us to continue 23 to do the very best we can in our relationship with the 24 County. And -- but we thought that, in our opinion, these 25 agreements deserve to be looked at and renegotiated, and so 1-19-11 jcc 8 1 that was the gist of it. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is there a -- just kind of more 3 of a global view; to me, that's where we are today at the 4 meeting. Is the issue -- the agreements are mostly very old. 5 Only one of them has been -- is fairly recent; that's the 6 airport. The other ones are all, I think, 2005, 2003, 2006 7 periods. Is the issue more that they're outdated from where 8 we are because of a lot of what we did three years ago? Or 9 is the issue that the whole process is broken; that we really 10 need to go back and relook at funding, you know, levels and 11 -- you know, I mean, is it a -- 12 MAYOR WAMPLER: I think a little bit of both. For 13 instance, right now we have two agreements, one for fire, one 14 for EMS. And I think, you know, one of the things that we 15 talked about on emergency services is -- is that those 16 services are essentially cojoined. It's very difficult to 17 separate them from a functional standpoint, from a staffing 18 level standpoint, equipping and so forth. So, as an example, 19 in terms of being broken, we might want to take a look at 20 having one contract that governs both services for a global 21 approach to emergency services throughout the county. And so 22 that would be, in my mind, an issue where things are broken. 23 I think the concept in the Council's mind -- and, certainly, 24 anybody on Council that's here can step in, but I think our 25 concept is also that the approach that's fairly new, say over 1-19-11 jcc 9 1 the last three, four years, or the quid pro quo where the 2 County funds certain aspects like the airport and we fund the 3 library, doesn't work in practice as well as it might have 4 looked on paper, in our opinion. And so we'd like to revisit 5 that from a -- from a functional or contract standpoint. So, 6 a couple observations. But, yeah, it's a little bit of both. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: One other item was the -- obviously, 8 the need to start these discussions moving along while we're 9 here today, and the request that because of budgetary 10 planning, that the City would like to have at least a draft 11 proposal in place for budget planning purposes by the end of 12 March of this year. And that's probably the other main 13 thrust of the meeting, I would say. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- 15 MAYOR WAMPLER: Jon, and just to be fair, I'm just 16 talking. I wasn't -- we also provided Judge Tinley some 17 financial data with regard to emergency services and the cost 18 associated with providing those, so I'm sure -- 19 JUDGE TINLEY: And I passed that on to the Auditor, 20 who's reviewing it. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Because, I mean, it seems to me 22 that then the way -- I'm kind of going back to what the Judge 23 was talking about. The City provides information, you know, 24 on kind of where you see it going. I hope that goes in the 25 format of kind of an outline, as opposed to agreements, 1-19-11 jcc 10 1 'cause I don't want to get in a situation where the City 2 drafts all the agreements, and then we're trying to 3 backtrack, so to speak. I'd rather get kind of an issue from 4 you -- or almost an outline from the County's standpoint, an 5 outline from the City's standpoint as to where we see things 6 need to be worked on, so we're working within that framework, 7 as opposed to starting right off the bat writing new 8 agreements. I mean, just kind of an outline for that. 9 'Cause I think, you know, it gets very cumbersome to try to 10 go back, "No, I don't like this sentence here," and we get 11 lost in the details when we're trying to really fix the 12 global issues. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: Bullet point, primarily. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Bullet point, something like 15 that. Just like you said, EMS/fire should be connected. I 16 mean, that makes sense to me, at least conceptually. 17 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, and again, my goal for the 18 meeting today was to talk about those very things in terms of 19 structure. What are our basic principles in terms of moving 20 forward under a tight deadline? We really got a couple of 21 months to hopefully hash these out, so the approach that we 22 take, that's fine. If we're talking about the points that 23 we'd like to negotiate, and then, you know, hopefully insert 24 those points or structure future agreements around those 25 points, that would be fine with me. 1-19-11 jcc 11 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the -- you mentioned the 2 library and the airport. Are you -- well, not just you; I 3 mean the Council when I'm saying "you." Is the feeling that 4 the -- you want to go back to a joint funding of those two? 5 Or more involvement? 6 MAYOR WAMPLER: My view is a joint funding. And 7 I'll just say, frankly, you know, while I understand 8 Commissioners' -- I don't know what the right word is, but 9 Commissioners' concern about the -- the need or the necessity 10 or the advisability of funding library operations, for 11 instance, we've talked about that for many years. And I get 12 that. I also understand that the airport is a critical 13 component of our community in multiple respects, and the idea 14 somehow that the City would fund the library and the County 15 funds the airport, again, on paper, conceptually makes a lot 16 of sense, but I think from a practical standpoint, what it 17 does is it places the City in the role of sort of a junior 18 partner or lesser standing in terms of operations at the 19 airport. And we are a 50 percent owner of that facility. 20 We've gone to a citizen board, away from elected officials. 21 My understanding is that we can't go back to the elected 22 official model, but I'd like to find a way where we're more 23 partners in both operations. But particularly, you know, as 24 things stand now, the airport's critical. And we've honored 25 the agreement, I say collectively, as a city, to allow that 1-19-11 jcc 12 1 board to operate in terms of being virtually hands-off and 2 honoring the agreement that was made with the citizen board. 3 But I'd like to go back and readdress how the airport's 4 funded from an operational standpoint. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think just a comment on the 6 -- on the airport. I mean, and I think I've got the -- from 7 several people, I've heard this. I think the County's 8 relationship at the airport is the same as the City's. We 9 don't -- we're not involved. We handle two functions, the 10 payroll, and we handle H.R. That's the only thing that, you 11 know, we do, and that's -- and I have told the Airport Board 12 that that could be contracted out from our standpoint if it 13 can be done more economically. I don't see that there's 14 involvement there. And I think the only involvement that I 15 see is that the two Commissioners that are liaisons to the 16 airport choose to go to every Airport Board meeting -- almost 17 every Airport Board meeting. So, we don't participate from 18 the standpoint of governance, and I think, you know, under 19 the current system, that City Council could do the same. 20 They've chosen not to. City staff is at the meetings 21 generally, one or two people, and I just assumed that was -- 22 you know. But, you know, certainly it can be looked at, but 23 it seems to me that the airport -- I hate to tinker with 24 that. I mean, the funding is one issue, as to how you fund 25 the operations, but it seems to be going better than it's 1-19-11 jcc 13 1 ever gone, and we haven't had arguments out there between the 2 City and the County and discussions and all that for three 3 years, and it seems like the setup works. Now, whether it 4 makes more sense for the City to fund half of the operations 5 with the County, that really doesn't make that much 6 difference, as long as the -- in my mind, as long as the 7 basic structure's there. 'Cause it -- it's just -- I think 8 back five years ago, and it's so much smoother now, and it 9 seems that they're doing a good job. They're in the middle 10 of doing a master plan, and they're -- I mean, they're 11 engaged. They're working. And it's not a political issue, 12 which it shouldn't be. 13 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, I certainly agree; the lack 14 of divisiveness amongst the City and the County not serving 15 directly on the board is welcome. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Both are equally represented; 17 is that correct? 18 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Not true. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. Both have 20 representation. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: No, no, they're joint represent -- 22 the City and the County both concur in the members of that 23 board. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Exactly. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: The governance issue is -- is off 1-19-11 jcc 14 1 the table as it pertains to these two bodies. It's a 2 self-governing organization of its own. 3 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: From a practical standpoint, 4 Judge, that's not entirely true. From a practical 5 standpoint, as an example, when the contract was made with 6 the County to -- for the work out there, the City was never 7 ever given the courtesy to be involved in that. It was only 8 dealt straight with the County. As a partner, we should have 9 had the opportunity to participate in it. We were not given 10 that. And the contract itself is -- has some areas of 11 concern from the City's perspective, but we were never given 12 the opportunity to participate, to comment, to do anything, 13 and so it was not a joint effort. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't want to get into 15 details, but the City made many comments on the budget that 16 were incorporated into the -- 17 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I'm not talking budget. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the City and the County 19 both -- well, the Airport Board looked at both options; to 20 continue, basically, the City's plan for doing the work out 21 there, and the County had a very different plan to do the 22 work out there, and they chose to use the County's plan. 23 But, I mean, that's -- you know, we don't need to go into 24 details. I don't think that's the purpose today. On the 25 library, the -- the issue has always been at the library, 1-19-11 jcc 15 1 from the County's perspective, that if we're going to be 2 equal funding partners, we need to be equal partners, and 3 that has always been a -- we don't own the building; we don't 4 own the property. We don't -- we're not involved in staffing 5 or anything. So, I mean, it's a -- am I hearing you say that 6 you want to reopen and look at doing a joint model similar to 7 the airport at the library? 8 MAYOR WAMPLER: We're open to suggestion. We're 9 going to, obviously, take a look at what makes sense both to 10 the City and the County. And I want to be clear; you know, 11 our notice to terminate these contracts doesn't necessarily 12 mean that any one operation changes dramatically. I think 13 it's healthy for us to take a look at them. And, again, in 14 my opinion, and for some of the reasons that Bruce just 15 enumerated, I don't believe that the quid pro quo aspect of 16 the City -- the airport versus the library works all that 17 well, and I want to take a look at, you know, what, if 18 anything, might work better. If we come to the conclusion 19 after this process that things should stay the same, we will 20 have had, you know, a couple of months to take a look at it 21 and leave it alone or make changes. I do think, though, that 22 there's room for -- certainly on the funding side. You know, 23 from the management and operations side, you know, that's 24 part of this deal as well. But from the funding side, going 25 back to a mutual funding for both operations seems to make 1-19-11 jcc 16 1 sense to me, and I'd like to talk about that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Are there any -- are there any of 4 the joint operations or contractual agreements for 5 city/county services that you don't want to tinker with? For 6 example, we've got a recycling center that never really has 7 raised its head up above, and we've got -- got a tax 8 collection agreement that, so far as I know, I've never heard 9 any question raised about the propriety or not of that. 10 Maybe there are others, but those two come to mind. I guess 11 what I'm trying to do, can we eliminate some so that we can 12 narrow what we're going to be focused on here? 13 MAYOR WAMPLER: Yes, sir. I mean, certainly, if -- 14 if the Commissioners wanted to talk about those things, we're 15 prepared to do that, but those are not on our radar. Those 16 aren't on our list currently. But I guess in the context of 17 opening all these things up for negotiation, if that was 18 something that you guys wanted to tackle, we could certainly 19 do that, but the list that we have, again, consists of 20 airport, animal control, library, EMS, and fire. So -- 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What about animal control? 22 MAYOR WAMPLER: Animal control -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What's your beef with animal 24 control? 25 MAYOR WAMPLER: We don't have a beef with animal 1-19-11 jcc 17 1 control, Bruce. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Do you want to jointly fund 3 that, or do you want to do -- 4 MAYOR WAMPLER: We might. It's open to discussion. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. You might consider 6 doing it yourself. 7 MAYOR WAMPLER: And we might do that, too. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's an option. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So those are the four? 10 MAYOR WAMPLER: Mm-hmm. 11 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Five. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, I put fire and EMS 13 together. Judge? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Hmm? 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Looking at the list, the Court 16 has liaisons for all these. I mean, I guess it makes sense 17 for the liaisons to be the -- the lead people on these 18 things, from the County's standpoint. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Or, you know -- 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Certainly seems most logical, I 22 would think. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That way I get out of fire and 24 EMS, anyway. (Laughter.) 25 JUDGE TINLEY: One of those default deals. If you 1-19-11 jcc 18 1 don't show up, you get it dropped on you. Where's Buster? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think one of the things 3 that would be beneficial -- 4 (Commissioner Baldwin joined the meeting.) 5 (Laughter.) 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What's the story? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioner Baldwin, it's good to 8 see you here this morning. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Nice to see you. I had to 10 milk before I came in. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: I see. Well, we just loaded your 12 plate. You need to go get you a wagon so you can load it up. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do I need a lawyer? 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably. You can't get around; go 15 around the other way. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What I was saying, I think it 17 would be beneficial to the County, and that in order to be 18 able to evaluate our fire and EMS, that we got to review the 19 actual cost, the actual revenues, and the actual accounts 20 receivable, especially on EMS. 21 MAYOR WAMPLER: I believe we provided the Judge the 22 revenue and the cost components. I don't think we talked 23 about accounts receivable, but certainly we provided that in 24 a spreadsheet form at our initial meeting. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I have not seen that. That's 1-19-11 jcc 19 1 why I asked the question. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: I initially gave that to the 3 Auditor, and the Auditor has that. It's a summary 4 spreadsheet form that they prepared on it. 5 MAYOR WAMPLER: So, Jon, are you proposing, then, 6 that each of the Commissioners -- because I don't remember 7 all the liaisons for each one of these functions, but can you 8 say again what your proposal is then for us to -- 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, just -- I mean, from 10 the -- on the fire/EMS, I believe Commissioner Baldwin is 11 kind of our liaison on those. Is that correct, Buster? 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That is correct. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the library, it's me. 14 Animal Control, it's -- 15 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Bruce. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And myself. And the airport is 17 Guy and myself. The only ones that I think that I may ask 18 for another commissioner, or maybe the Judge get a person to 19 join on is on the library, because our liaison 20 responsibilities are kind of -- you know, it's -- I attend 21 the Library Advisory Board meetings, and that's the only 22 involvement I have, and so I'm not -- I mean, it's going to 23 take a lot of getting up to speed on the library, because I'm 24 not real familiar with the operations. In fact, we talked 25 about this at the Library Advisory Board meeting yesterday, 1-19-11 jcc 20 1 that, you know, that the County has not made its -- an 2 appointment. There's a vacancy of Kay Hayes right now that 3 was a county appointment, and our feeling was that we need to 4 see what we're doing, because under the current, I guess, 5 operations at the library, it really didn't make a whole lot 6 of sense for the County to be appointing people to this board 7 unless the City wanted us to, because we're not that involved 8 in that area. I think it'd probably be helpful to have 9 somebody assist on that. 10 MAYOR WAMPLER: Do you have any thoughts as to, I 11 guess, distribution of information or negotiating points? I 12 think one of the concerns I see -- and that approach is 13 certainly respected, and we'll do whatever makes sense for 14 you all and for us. But from the standpoint of a central 15 person to receive and disseminate information to the Court, 16 would we rely on each of the ex officios or liaisons to do 17 that? Or should we communicate with Judge Tinley as a focal 18 point to move paper around? How do we do that? 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think communicate with Jody. 20 Go through our administrative assistant. That will get us 21 information generally; all the information will go to all of 22 us, so we all have the ability to have that information. 23 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: And I assume from y'all's 25 standpoint, communicate through the City Manager or through 1-19-11 jcc 21 1 Tara? 2 MAYOR WAMPLER: Yes, sir, that'd be fine. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Makes sense. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Is the -- just from a question 5 standpoint, I presume it will be Council and staff that we're 6 working through, because of different -- 7 MAYOR WAMPLER: I'm not speaking for the entire 8 Council, but my door's always open, and I intend to be 9 involved in each one of these. To the extent that I can 10 speak with you all as we go, that would be most welcome. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, I guess -- let me rephrase 12 the question. Who do the County contact, and who -- do we 13 just talk to the City Manager about everything? 14 MAYOR WAMPLER: Yeah. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: On the scheduling? 16 MAYOR WAMPLER: Yes, from a scheduling standpoint. 17 And, again, if there's any -- any information or talking 18 points that need to be distributed, I think that makes the 19 most sense, because he'll be in contact with all of us. If 20 you -- you know, certainly, for Open Meetings Act purposes, 21 if we have a conversation, I can't turn around and talk to 22 the rest of the Council, but again, I want to be clear when I 23 say that I want to be available and involved. So, to the 24 extent that there's a policy issue or something that any one 25 of you would like to discuss, I want to be involved in that. 1-19-11 jcc 22 1 So, I mean, I leave that up to your discretion, but from an 2 administrative standpoint, certainly get a hold of the City 3 Manager. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And since -- is Mike here? 5 There's Mike. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Back there. 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Hi, Mike. We have our two 8 legal minds here. In the past when we have done these, it 9 was felt that since we were just discussing issues in small 10 groups -- I'm thinking of ETJ, which we met on for years, it 11 seems -- that that was not required to be an Open Meetings. 12 Is that still the same? If we're just meeting in small 13 groups, one or two commissioners or councilmen and staff, no 14 decision's being made, just kind of negotiations, those are 15 not subject to Open Meetings; is that correct? I see nods 16 from both attorneys. I wanted to make sure. Just wanted to 17 make sure that I have the nod on the record. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think, too, that we 19 need to consider that being as that we're being given notice 20 that these agreements are going to be nullified and we're 21 going to have to negotiate some new ones, that it pretty much 22 puts us on notice to explore other options that are there for 23 us to look at, for services that have been provided by 24 agreement up to now with the City, and services that we 25 provide to the City, see where we want to go with those. And 1-19-11 jcc 23 1 we're all facing budget shortfalls and revenue shortfalls, 2 and I know that we've had to make some pretty severe cuts, 3 and we have for the last three years. We have less staff now 4 than we've had in the past. Our employees make much less 5 salary than the city employees do. Our services -- like, 6 Road and Bridge is one that is a very cost-effective service. 7 We take care of 600 miles of road, and we do it on a little 8 over $2 million a year total cost. 9 So, you know, I think we've offered some service to 10 the City on some city streets, and that in the past has been 11 a material cost only to the City, and no labor, no 12 administrative cost, no equipment time charged. And so, you 13 know, I think that's something we need to look at too, if 14 we're going to be fair. You know, we've been doing some 15 things that, to my knowledge, we haven't even gotten a "thank 16 you" for. And one day I was at Road and Bridge not too long 17 ago, and they were talking about ordering material for a job 18 in the city, and the conversation was that the City had been 19 told how much material was needed, what the cost was, and it 20 needed to be ordered to do the job. City was dragging it 21 feet; they wanted the County to order it, pay for it, and 22 then wait for reimbursement. I don't think that's going to 23 happen any more. I don't think it happened then. So, you 24 know, we want to try to get along and to do things jointly 25 that benefit everybody. So, I think we need to keep all that 1-19-11 jcc 24 1 in mind as we go through this process. There's more to it 2 than what there may be on paper, and there are other options. 3 And the County is going to be forced to go with options that 4 are the most cost-effective and still provide the basic 5 service. That's not meant to step on anybody's toes; it's 6 just fact. 7 MAYOR WAMPLER: I don't take it as stepping on my 8 toes, Bruce. In fact, I welcome those comments. I think 9 the -- number one, the assumption or the thought that an 10 agreement of any sort can stretch itself out into perpetuity 11 without any renegotiating, rethought, or relook, is probably 12 unrealistic. Circumstances change, needs change, 13 capabilities change and so forth. So, I think, you know, 14 this isn't certainly meant to poke anyone in the eye or to 15 say that there are glaring deficiencies in any way in our 16 relationship. It is meant -- we believe that there are some 17 things that we'd like to talk about from -- from y'all's 18 expectation and our ability to deliver. I think the 19 result -- the -- I guess the reason that these -- these 20 contracts or these agreements are in place are a direct 21 result of the City and the County doing the very best they 22 can with what they have at a given time to cooperate and to 23 get along. So, this -- I want to be clear; this isn't 24 personal. This isn't an issue where we're, you know, 25 horribly dissatisfied with our relationship, or personally 1-19-11 jcc 25 1 dissatisfied with you or anyone else. This is about -- these 2 things have been in place, some of them, for a long time. I 3 think it makes sense to take a look at them from time to 4 time, and I think it makes sense for both of us, as political 5 entities, to go back to our -- our -- what we do best, and to 6 allocate the resources that we have available to us in the 7 best possible way, and to the extent that we can cooperate, 8 we ought to continue to do that. That's the end -- that's 9 the whole story. 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think it benefits the 11 entire community. 12 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: Yeah. 13 MAYOR WAMPLER: So, you know, I -- 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's where our focus needs 15 to be, is what's best for the constituents both inside and 16 outside the city, and that's just the way it is. It should 17 be -- it should be a benefit to everybody, and it should be 18 cost-effective to do that, more so between the entities 19 rather than going outside and finding an outside source. 20 MAYOR WAMPLER: There's no doubt. There's no doubt 21 whatsoever that value is added on the county side with Road 22 and Bridge as an example, okay? I don't believe there's any 23 doubt that there are services provided by the City that we're 24 not compensated for. To the extent that you provide the 25 services or you were responsible for doing something for the 1-19-11 jcc 26 1 City where you weren't given a "thank you," I apologize for 2 that, and I'll tell you thank you right now. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Good. 4 MAYOR WAMPLER: But I'll tell you now, as an 5 example, when we send an EMS bus into the county, we also 6 send a fire truck. We don't get compensated for that fire 7 truck. And I'm not asking for a "thank you." I'm saying we 8 need to align those two services and be compensated for the 9 value that we're providing, and we intend to negotiate that 10 with you. And if the County decides that you would like to 11 do something differently, we're prepared to accept that and 12 make adjustments as necessary. So, I'd really rather not get 13 into all the -- the side issues, the side benefits that we 14 all provide each other services in the interest of getting 15 along and doing the best we can for everybody in the county 16 and the city. 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, you just mentioned 18 something that might be a negotiating point. You know, we're 19 not -- I'm not sure, from my standpoint, that -- that we 20 would require you to send a fire truck every time an 21 ambulance goes out, because we have volunteer fire 22 departments that respond whenever the ambulances go out when 23 there's an accident or where they need service. We don't 24 need that truck there. 25 MAYOR WAMPLER: And that gets back to a discussion 1-19-11 jcc 27 1 of service levels. But from our standpoint, again, we don't 2 need to negotiate all this today. That's a -- that's an 3 emergency service protocol that we have for the protection of 4 our personnel. 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I understand that, but that's 6 a protocol that can be allocated to the city and not 7 necessarily go into the county. 8 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, and again, that goes back to 9 my -- my initial question of Judge Tinley. As we're -- you 10 know, I would like to get to some understanding sooner, 11 rather than later, as to what service expectations the County 12 might have across the board, but that obviously being the 13 most critical. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, and I also think, you 15 know, I don't know -- I think from what I've seen and what 16 I've heard in the recent past about fire and EMS, those were 17 two separate services. Now you want to put them together. 18 And -- 19 MAYOR WAMPLER: From a functional standpoint, they 20 have to be. We can't offer one or the other. We have 21 firemen and EMT's that do both tasks. They save lives on the 22 EMT side, and they fight fires on the fire side, and they run 23 together from a -- from a service delivery standpoint. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. Well, those are things 25 to be talked about. 1-19-11 jcc 28 1 MAYOR WAMPLER: Yes, sir. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are you saying, therefore, that 3 if a -- that the City is -- for internal reasons, cannot send 4 an ambulance without a fire truck? 5 MAYOR WAMPLER: I'm not going to speak for the 6 operations entirely, so -- Chief Ojeda's here. If you had a 7 specific question, he could answer that question. But 8 generally, my understanding on certain types of calls, both 9 services are going to respond to that call. 10 CHIEF OJEDA: That's correct. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, in my mind, that 12 increases the cost of the service. 13 MAYOR WAMPLER: There is a cost associated with 14 providing the service, that's right. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. On the -- I've got a 16 negotiate or non-negotiate list here. I added Road and 17 Bridge to the negotiate list, because that is something that 18 we have talked about. Commissioner Oehler brought that up, 19 but that's -- you know, the first year was not a lot of 20 money. You know, it was 10,000 or something like that, and I 21 think last year we were approaching 30,000, 40,000. I think 22 this year, it's closer to 60,000. I mean, it depends on -- 23 so that number is growing, and I think that's something that, 24 you know, we need to really look at. Maybe not change it, 25 but just look at it. 1-19-11 jcc 29 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I think last year we had 2 about 7 miles laid inside the city last year; about 50,000 3 cubic square yards of material was laid in. I'd just like to 4 say that, again, I think as the discussions are getting ready 5 to go on, I think, again, on the positive side, we both have, 6 you know, budgets that are very much -- as we all know, are 7 getting shrinking revenues. And to sit and to negotiate and 8 to look at what's best for our taxpayers is essential right 9 now. And these are challenging times, and I think it's a 10 positive, and I look forward to negotiating and to seeing if 11 we can find ways of how we can benefit everybody. 12 MAYOR WAMPLER: Thanks, Guy. 13 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: I think Mr. Overby's comments 14 are definitely -- definitely warranted. And as I look at 15 paying my own personal tax bills, not only paying city taxes, 16 but I pay county taxes and I'm a city resident, I think we've 17 all -- both sides have got to look at this from the 18 standpoint that we're -- we're doing services for both. You 19 know, the -- the County's not just providing services for the 20 county outside the city limits. A lot of y'all's 21 constituency -- constituents live inside the city. 22 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: That's right. 23 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: All of us have got to keep that 24 in mind and make sure that we're doing the best job we can do 25 for all of them. 1-19-11 jcc 30 1 COMMISSIONER OVERBY: I'd like to also say that I 2 think that once we get through all the interlocal agreements, 3 and we will, we will -- we will compromise. We'll come 4 together and we will work together. I think that longer -- I 5 know a lot of you sitting around here have been preaching it 6 a long time, but we have got to -- we've got to work more 7 hand-in-hand on long-term, you know, things that we're going 8 to resolve, so that we can look at other streams of revenue 9 to come in, other projects, working together. We're doing -- 10 we're being forced to try and find ways to work together on 11 projects on how we're going to increase revenues in our area. 12 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, Guy, again, I appreciate you 13 saying that. Judge Tinley and I have had, I think, a great 14 working relationship in the short time that I've been mayor 15 on areas of mutual interest, including CREZ, and we fought 16 that battle together, and we're going to find out here 17 shortly what the results of that fight have been. But we 18 understand that we -- we have a joint interest in those 19 areas. Also, in terms of economic development, we've taken a 20 look at our position; we're trying to prioritize mutual 21 circulation issues with TexDOT. You know, the -- the 22 presentation, you know, I think that we've both seen -- I'm 23 not sure Commissioners Court have seen it in total, but with 24 the property there along I-10 on the south side, which 25 certainly if CREZ does come down I-10, is going to make those 1-19-11 jcc 31 1 areas much more critical from the standpoint of economic 2 improvement down the road over the next 20 years, and I agree 3 with you 100 percent. And I think -- and I appreciate Pat's 4 openness and desire and willingness to work with us. And 5 we -- we've had a lot of good conversations along those 6 lines. I want to continue to do that. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: Anything else we need to do here 8 preliminarily? We got the ground rules laid out. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: A couple quick comments, just 10 going back to what -- Guy's two comments and the mayor's. 11 You know, we tend to, when we get to these meetings, focus on 12 the problems, and that's what tends to get reported in the 13 press. And the reality is that we, I think, work very well 14 together on most areas. Even on the areas where we disagree, 15 we work together; it's just a matter of trying to give a 16 different perception sometimes of what's fair and how we look 17 at budgets and things of that nature, and how we possibly 18 allocate it. But I think, overall, our relationship has been 19 outstanding with the City of Kerrville, as long as I've been 20 a commissioner. We've had some rough periods through there, 21 but -- you know, overall, that's what we tend to remember. 22 But there's lots of issues and things like tax collection, 23 recycling, that haven't been a problem in, I know, 14 years, 24 and there's lots of other areas where we do things together. 25 Economic development is one. So, I think we just need to 1-19-11 jcc 32 1 always remember that, you know, just because we meet like 2 this, and sometimes they are a little bit confrontational or 3 difference of opinions, that's the minority relationship as 4 opposed to what we -- you know, we tend to get along pretty 5 well, I think. 6 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, I give you my word, again, 7 this is not in my mind a confrontational issue. This is an 8 issue where we have mutual interests. As Gene said, you 9 know, every -- I think everybody in here is a resident of the 10 county. Some of us are residents of the city. We -- we've 11 got resources -- mutual resources that we need to allocate. 12 I don't believe that, no matter how well crafted an agreement 13 is, that it -- that it stands up to time, and I think from 14 time to time it's good to take a look at the agreements that 15 we have in place and see if there's any -- any needs or any 16 ability to tighten them up. And that's -- that's the long 17 and short of my intention here, and I look forward to working 18 with all of you to see what we can do in that regard. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: How long would it take for the 20 City to come up with a bullet point of the fire/EMS, library, 21 animal control, airport, and Road and Bridge as to kind of 22 how -- the changes you want, whatever the changes may be, or 23 leave it the same? And then I'll ask how long he thinks it's 24 going to take for us to do the same, so we can kind of have a 25 -- you know, if we don't have a deadline, it probably won't 1-19-11 jcc 33 1 happen. 2 MR. PARTON: If I could offer this up, if both 3 sides are open to this, I'll send an e-mail out to each of 4 you requesting what specific data that you would like 5 provided. We'll get to work on that as quickly as we 6 possibly can. What I'd like to have for you by the end of 7 next week is a profile for each of these services from our 8 perspective on some of these, like animal control, that the 9 County provides, so we may -- mainly on this side in terms of 10 profile and call demands, those types of things. But from a 11 staff perspective, we talked about a profile so we can look 12 at where historically we are. We could look at what our 13 expenditures have been, what revenue streams have been, and 14 then what the call or service level historical data would be 15 that we have with this. So, if I could offer this, we'll 16 have a profile pulled together for each one of these services 17 that the City provides. I'll send an e-mail out to y'all. 18 If y'all could think about what specific data that you would 19 like us to try to pull together, we'll pull that together and 20 get it to you as quickly as we can. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Todd, when you say "profile," are 22 you speaking of a description, or are you talking about a 23 general proposal from the City's perspective of what they 24 desire to obtain in each of -- each of these agreements, the 25 meat and potatoes portion of it? 1-19-11 jcc 34 1 MR. PARTON: I think what I'm referring to is an 2 outline of what the existing service levels are and what the 3 existing utilization of those services are, so as a baseline 4 to really understand what is being provided, and then what 5 the associated costs have been over time. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, you basically want 7 percentages. Say -- take animal control, for instance. You 8 want to see percentages of animals that were dealt with 9 within the city, and the ones that were outside of the city? 10 MR. PARTON: Sure. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Showing, you know, what the 12 -- what the basic percentage is of the service that was 13 given -- or provided. 14 MR. PARTON: Right. And on the library side, we've 15 talked about this from the staff perspective, is can you -- 16 is there a way, with our data, to bifurcate that so you look 17 at city versus county? With our library system, that's -- as 18 I understand it, at this point we don't have the historical 19 ability to do that. We can look at what volumes are. We are 20 instituting a new software system there that will reissue 21 library cards and will begin to start collecting data based 22 on geography; in-city, out-of-city, beyond. So, we'll -- 23 we're trying to pull together as much data as we can. On 24 fire and EMS, we've been pulling together data, looking at 25 that from various different perspectives, and so I wanted to 1-19-11 jcc 35 1 be able to provide that information for everybody so we have 2 a full understanding about just what it is that's provided. 3 You know, just what those costs are and how -- what those 4 revenue streams look like on those operations as we move 5 forward. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So the profile, then -- and I'm 7 looking at EMS and animal control are pretty easy, because 8 there's historical data. There's numbers. Library is a 9 little bit difficult, because it's kind of a -- it's a county 10 -- I mean, used by the county as a whole. Airport, the 11 budget side of it doesn't -- I don't think is an issue, 12 because we both are currently reviewing the budget, but it's 13 more a little bit on input is what we're looking at? 14 MR. PARTON: I think on the airport, what we should 15 look at is what the actual end-of-year audited expenditures 16 have looked like. What's been spent in actuality? 'Cause 17 there's a differential between the budget sometimes and what 18 was actually spent. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 20 MR. PARTON: So we should go back and look at what 21 we spent on library. What was spent? What hours of 22 operation are there? You know, how many patrons are coming? 23 To provide as good a core set of data as we possibly can in 24 terms of how all that functions. And understanding about, as 25 part of the state library system, what the implications of 1-19-11 jcc 36 1 that -- you know, all those things are, the specific data 2 points we need to get to so we understand the -- mutually, 3 these services that we're talking about. And I think from 4 that point, then it begins to clarify whether there's any 5 adjustments on desired service levels that we need to 6 contemplate. 7 COUNCILMAN GROSS: I think we need to be careful, 8 because fire and EMS is an example, and so's the library. 9 It's not really the cost per run; it's the fact that we have 10 the equipment there if we need it. We're paying for the 11 potential. So, we don't -- I don't -- I think we can get 12 lost in the weeds if we add up all the people who used the 13 ambulance this week, and we had 11. I think that would be a 14 mistake. We've got to keep in mind that the city limits is 15 not the proverbial line drawn in the sand. It should be, I 16 think, viewed as more a morphous kind of a thing, and we 17 don't need to get into quid pro quo on every little item. I 18 think everything should be on the table, but we're all in 19 Kerrville. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, here's an example of 21 something that might be asked if -- when it comes to EMS. It 22 seems like the EMS may be, in my mind, more than one of the 23 bones of contention. That's probably going to be negotiated 24 pretty -- pretty hard. What if, for example, we said we will 25 not pay for a fire truck responding with an ambulance? Is 1-19-11 jcc 37 1 that an option or not? So, basically, what you're saying -- 2 I'm looking at Bruce shaking his head. So you would not 3 provide the service without sending your fire truck, which is 4 protocol that you have established inside the city? 5 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I think that the chief and -- 6 or the chiefs and all should be involved in that answer. I 7 am not in a position, nor do I have the knowledge, to answer 8 that directly today. From what I have heard here this 9 morning, that's probably not an option, but I don't -- I 10 can't cast that in stone. I think we are -- we are probably 11 getting the cart ahead of the horse in a sense, some of this. 12 One of the things that needs to be done is to get to an 13 agreement on the level of service that is a satisfactory 14 level of service in all of these -- these issues. If that 15 level of service is satisfactory, then we can begin to put 16 together the budget numbers and things, and that's step two 17 after we get the level of service. Because a change in the 18 level of service will change the budget, so step one has got 19 to be the level of service. 20 Step two is the -- is the budget, the dollars. And 21 I would suggest that we concentrate on what our historical 22 service has been, both county and city. Are those service 23 levels acceptable? If they're not, what can we do to change 24 them? And are we going to go down -- we can end up at some 25 point, whether it's library, airport, whatever, and say we no 1-19-11 jcc 38 1 longer want to participate. "We," the County, the City, 2 whomever, we're going to go somewhere else for our part of 3 the service. That's fine. But why go through the tortures 4 of trying to negotiate a budget if you're going to end up 5 without the service? Let's get the service levels settled 6 first, and then -- then we -- 7 COUNCILMAN GROSS: I'd like to ask Chief Ojeda to 8 make sure that -- maybe to provide a summary of the 9 protocols, because I think, listening to these two talk, they 10 each have a different viewpoint of what that protocol really 11 is. And there are some runs, for example, that you want that 12 truck, and there's some runs where it's not necessary. We 13 might want to look at the structure -- the protocols for a 14 structure fire in the county. I don't think we're 15 necessarily providing adequate service, but maybe I don't 16 understand protocols. So, I think it'd be a good idea, 17 particularly for fire and EMS, to have a clear explanation of 18 what the protocols are. 19 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'll say one thing about the 20 fire service that we received since we started talking about 21 maybe eliminating that part of the contract back during our 22 budget talks. Y'all's level of service has gone up in fire 23 response. It had not been that in the past, but we 24 appreciate that. But it has -- it has improved. There have 25 been fires that were responded to that the Sheriff wasn't 1-19-11 jcc 39 1 even notified that there was a fire in the county that needed 2 to be responded to by volunteers. So, you know, that's 3 wonderful, but that level of service had not been there until 4 we started talking about a lot of this. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think I agree with Bruce. I 6 think that the -- and going back to Todd's thing, I think the 7 profiles are going to be each one a little bit different. I 8 think it's the level of service from both sides; what we 9 expect, you know, on fire, what we want on fire, and then 10 what y'all are giving on fire, and then seeing how -- if 11 we're close or not close. And then with some summary budget 12 information, 'cause I do agree with Bruce; I don't think 13 there's any point in us fighting about the cost of an 14 ambulance if we're not going to even get there. 15 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Yeah. 16 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: I just think we need to be real 17 careful in drawing lines in the sand. From a law enforcement 18 standpoint, I'd hate to see a Sheriff's deputy 20 feet out of 19 the city limits needing assistance, and we've got a police 20 officer -- a city police officer on the inside of the city 21 limits saying," You know what? I can't help." 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't -- 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, that's -- 24 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: I'll butt in there. I don't 25 think it matters what kind of agreement y'all come up with or 1-19-11 jcc 40 1 how much discontent there is. I don't believe that you're 2 going to find a situation that a city officer is not going to 3 run to help a county one, and a county one is not going to go 4 run to help a city one, regardless. 5 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: And let me clarify that, too, 6 Sheriff, because I wasn't implying that that was going to 7 happen. I was using that as an example, that I didn't want 8 to see us get to a point of drawing a line in the sand. 9 SHERIFF HIERHOLZER: Right. 10 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: I know that was a pretty harsh 11 analogy. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Now, you say that, but I will 13 tell you that there will be a line drawn on what funding is 14 able to be paid for certain services. I mean, you can -- you 15 can call it a line in the sand; you can call it the ability 16 to pay for that service at that level. You know, there will 17 be lines drawn on -- on parameters of funding because of 18 budget constraints. We can't manufacture money. We have 19 very little -- very few sources of revenue. We don't have 20 the ability to raise fees and rates and fines and stuff the 21 same way the city does. Our funding level, you know, 22 constraints are very limited. Whatever the -- the 23 Legislature gives us is what we got. It's property taxes, 24 sales tax, fines and fees. Pretty well all there is. So, 25 you know, there will be -- there will have to be a line drawn 1-19-11 jcc 41 1 for the level of funding for services, in my opinion. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Are we ready to wind this 3 thing up? 4 MAYOR WAMPLER: Yes, sir. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: End of next week, profiles? 6 JUDGE TINLEY: Todd's going to get us the info, and 7 that'll be the launch point, right? 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Well, and I think the County 9 needs to get -- needs to do the same. We're having a -- this 10 will be on Monday's agenda? Are we meeting Monday? 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Yes. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Monday's agenda. 13 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: One thing in that light -- 14 and I think you're right. But each -- County and City needs 15 to initiate or tell the other party what it is, service level 16 wise, they anticipate, because that'll make a difference on 17 this whole thing. If -- if we can do that to give Todd and 18 the staff, for example, a target, if you would, to shoot at. 19 "Here's what we would like to see information-wise," and so 20 on. That -- and we can do the same thing from the city 21 standpoint. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Is your profile going to indicate 23 what levels of service are available to us? 24 MR. PARTON: I think on the -- the profile, each 25 one will be unique; each service is so different. But we'll 1-19-11 jcc 42 1 endeavor to try to talk about -- like, on fire and EMS, we've 2 got a certain number of stations. There's certain levels of 3 equipment. We can provide what the call demands are for each 4 of those stations. We can break out some -- some profiles. 5 There's some spreadsheets we can put together that are one- 6 or two-page outlines that give you a good snapshot. And I'm 7 assuming that that data will probably generate more questions 8 and more requests for information, so -- but yeah, it'll -- 9 we're endeavoring to show that. And it'll outline -- or 10 provide a summary of the actual services being provided now. 11 Fire and EMS, of course, is -- fire, emergency medical, 12 emergency management, there's a number of types of services 13 that are provided under that. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: And depending upon what Chief Ojeda 15 gives you as to the protocols, which protocols are waivable, 16 I'm going to call it for lack of a better term, in certain 17 situations, going back to the example Commissioner Oehler put 18 out, that's going to determine the level of service. And 19 until we know that, I'm not sure we're in a position to 20 really select, is where I'm coming from. So if your profile, 21 in situations where there are different levels of service 22 available, would somehow indicate that -- and as I say, with 23 regard to the fire and EMS, I think it's going to depend upon 24 what Chief Ojeda gives you in the way of his protocols, and 25 then we'll take it from there. Then we can make an informed 1-19-11 jcc 43 1 decision as to whether it's level A, B, C, or whatever. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think at this point, the 3 County can still go in on fire and EMS, and what we think we 4 should get for the -- basically the funding we're getting -- 5 we're doing right now. I think it's kind of, "This is where 6 we want to end up." And then, based on what the City has on 7 the fire and EMS, can they deliver that? And I suspect we're 8 going to have a little bit of a bridge there that we're -- 9 something we're going to have to negotiate some on that. I 10 think it's -- you know, the County is -- needs to, by next 11 Friday, come up with our level -- our expectation level on 12 fire and EMS. And I think on Animal Control, we're going to 13 say, "This is what we're providing. This is where we see 14 some changes need to be made." And the City, likewise, 15 say -- you know, I presume y'all have an ordinance; y'all 16 want the ordinance followed. That's kind of where I think we 17 go on all these, and then figure out how close we are, how 18 far apart we are, then figure out the next steps. Hopefully 19 we're close. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You know, and on animal 21 control, too, one thing that we need to remind you of is 22 that, you know, we're doing 100 percent of it county-wide, 23 including the city. And the City of Kerrville is -- it's 24 revenue-positive for you, because you get to keep all the 25 fines from citations that were issued in the city. They go 1-19-11 jcc 44 1 to municipal court, so there is -- there is an amount of 2 money that you're getting, and you're -- you're actually 3 paying out nothing, but you're getting revenue from it. Not 4 a lot, but you're getting revenue. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And that's something that needs 6 to be -- we ought to put on the bullet points. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 8 MAYOR WAMPLER: Judge, one other thing, if you 9 wouldn't mind. If you could get with Mr. Parton and just 10 line out the individual representatives for each of the 11 services so that we're very clear as to who -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure. 13 MAYOR WAMPLER: -- who's involved in each one, that 14 would be helpful, I think, to me. 15 JUDGE TINLEY: Sure, not a problem. 16 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And the same thing from y'all's 18 standpoint; if y'all can divide it up. 19 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I don't know how -- obviously, 21 I think Todd will be at all the meetings. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Oh, yeah. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Poor Todd. 24 MR. PARTON: I think I'll make Mindy go. 25 JUDGE TINLEY: But Tara will definitely be there at 1-19-11 jcc 45 1 all of them, right? 2 MR. PARTON: She will. 3 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, on behalf of the Council, I 4 want to thank you for hosting us today. Appreciate the 5 conversation. 6 JUDGE TINLEY: We appreciate y'all being here. 7 MAYOR WAMPLER: Appreciate it. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: We'll be adjourned. 9 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. 10 (Joint meeting was adjourned at 9:04 a.m.) 11 - - - - - - - - - - 12 13 STATE OF TEXAS | 14 COUNTY OF KERR | 15 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 16 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 17 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 18 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 19 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 25th day of January, 20 2011. 21 22 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 23 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 24 Certified Shorthand Reporter 25 1-19-11 jcc