1 2 3 4 KERR COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COURT 5 Joint Meeting Session 6 Wednesday, March 2, 2011 7 9:00 a.m. 8 City of Kerrville 9 City Council Chambers 10 800 Junction Highway 11 Kerrville, Texas 12 13 14 15 Kerrville City Council: DAVID WAMPLER, Mayor 16 BRUCE MOTHERAL, Mayor Pro Tem STACIE KEEBLE, Councilmember, Place 2 17 SCOTT GROSS, Councilmember, Place 3 GENE ALLEN, Councilmember, Place 4 18 19 Kerr County Commissioners Court: PAT TINLEY, Kerr County Judge 20 H. A. "BUSTER" BALDWIN, Commissioner Pct. 1 JONATHAN LETZ, Commissioner Pct. 3 21 BRUCE OEHLER, Commissioner Pct. 4 22 23 24 25 2 1 I N D E X March 2, 2011 2 PAGE 1.1 Consider/discuss, take appropriate action to 3 establish Kerr County's contribution(s) or method(s) of determining such contribution(s) 4 to City/County jointly provided services or operations, including, but not limited to: 5 EMS, Fire Department, Library, Recycling Center, Animal Control, and Airport, and composition or 6 structure of interlocal agreements in connection therewith 3 7 --- Adjourned 87 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 3 1 On Wednesday, March 2, 2011, at 9:00 a.m., a joint 2 meeting of the Kerrville City Council and the Kerr County 3 Commissioners Court was held in the City of Kerrville City 4 Council Chambers, Kerrville, Texas, and the following 5 proceedings were had in open court: 6 P R O C E E D I N G S 7 MAYOR WAMPLER: If we could go ahead, we're at 8 9:03; we're running a couple of minutes behind. I want to 9 thank everybody for coming out. The meeting of the City 10 Council here at the Kerrville City Hall is called to order. 11 Judge, if you'd like to do the same thing for your -- 12 JUDGE TINLEY: I'll do likewise for the Kerr County 13 Commissioners Court. This is a special meeting between the 14 Kerr County Commissioners Court and Kerrville City Council. 15 It was posted by both entities for today, Wednesday, March 2, 16 2011, at 9 a.m. As we can all see, it's a bit past that time 17 now. The agenda item that the County has posted, and I think 18 it's been duplicated by the City for this meeting today, is 19 to consider, discuss, and take appropriate action to 20 establish Kerr County's contribution or contributions, or 21 method or methods of determining such contributions to the 22 City/County jointly provided services or operations, 23 including, but not limited to, EMS, fire department, library, 24 recycling center, animal control, and airport, and 25 composition or structure of interlocal agreements in 3-2-11 jcc 4 1 connection therewith. 2 MAYOR WAMPLER: I think that petty well covers it. 3 I think we'll go along with that. 4 JUDGE TINLEY: We worked with Mr. Parton's "right 5 hand" to duplicate that posting for us, so we're all legal as 6 far as I know. 7 MAYOR WAMPLER: If I may, what I would like to do 8 is just start off briefly with kind of a rundown of where we 9 are up to this point, and kind of fast-forward actually to 10 last Friday. Last Friday, Judge Tinley and I sat down with 11 Todd Parton and discussed all of these items, both from a 12 substance standpoint with regard to mutual funding, but also 13 kind of from a process standpoint of the way forward with 14 regard to negotiations, or -- or any other conversations that 15 are advisable between the City Council and County 16 Commissioners. So, that brings us here today. I think we -- 17 we agreed at that meeting on Friday that it would be a good 18 thing for us to sit down once again to visit. This is the 19 first time we've had a chance to get together, I think, since 20 probably the third week of January or so, and one of the 21 things that we agreed upon was that it would be helpful for 22 our Chief Ojeda to -- to give a presentation on fire and EMS 23 service delivery, and what that means both for the city and 24 for folks that live in the county, and what the service 25 levels have been and would be under the continued operations, 3-2-11 jcc 5 1 should the County decide to go in that direction. So, 2 without any more, if -- Chief Ojeda, if you could step up and 3 just kind of -- 4 CHIEF OJEDA: Sure. Should I go to the podium? 5 Thank you, Mayor. It's certainly a pleasure to be with you 6 today. I'd like to begin by stating that the EMS has been a 7 part of the fire service for over 50 years. Here in 8 Kerrville, we have been involved in the EMS service for 17 of 9 those years. And it's -- it's certainly not a distraction to 10 our mission, because our mission primarily, when the 11 Kerrville Fire Department began, was to provide fire service, 12 so it's not a distraction from our mission. It is one of our 13 core services within our mission that is provided by our 14 firefighters and our paramedics on duty. EMS training is 15 part of the basic training of all of our firefighters, from 16 the newest recruit to the most seasoned veteran that's in our 17 department. Pre-hospital 911 emergency response is one of 18 the essential public safety functions provided by the United 19 States Fire Service now, including Kerrville. 20 Our fire service-based EMS system is strategically 21 positioned to deliver time-critical response, effective 22 patient care, and also scene safety. The ride for a sick or 23 injured person in the ambulance is only part of the system. 24 A comprehensive EMS system such as ours includes rapid 25 response, our intervention into -- into situations that 3-2-11 jcc 6 1 occur, stabilization of the patient, and then transportation 2 to a definitive care facility if needed. Even the Kerr 3 County First Responder program is managed by the Kerrville 4 Fire Department through our EMS coordinator. In fact, last 5 year, Eric Maloney, who is our EMS coordinator, was given the 6 distinction of being EMS Coordinator of the Year for the 7 entire state of Texas, and part of that was received by him 8 based on his work with the Kerr County First Responder 9 program and what that means to Kerr County as far as EMS 10 issues are concerned. 11 The fire service-based EMS system brings treatment 12 to the patient wherever they are. That treatment by 13 firefighters begins immediately, even if the patient is 14 trapped in a building, if it's on fire, pinned in a motor 15 vehicle accident or a collapsed structure. The provision of 16 EMS response treatment and transportation by the Kerrville 17 Fire Department is seamless, and like most fire-based EMS 18 systems, is the epitome of efficiency. One agent -- one 19 agency is responsible for the continuity of patient care and 20 provides EMS with an all-hazard response model. Firefighters 21 are deployed and ready to respond to any type of emergency. 22 This comprehensive approach to emergency medical care is what 23 makes a measurable difference in patient survival, the true 24 measure of the quality of any EMS system. Kerrville 25 firefighters are long-term workers in our community. We have 3-2-11 jcc 7 1 very low turnover rates. We know about the needs of our 2 community. We are highly experienced emergency medical care 3 providers, and more importantly, we are very familiar with 4 the streets, the roads, the infrastructure and natural 5 barriers throughout the county. 6 It's difficult to talk about EMS without involving 7 fire. A large percentage of all responses by the Kerrville 8 Fire Department are medically related, and it is a system 9 that EMS in Kerrville, as well as in Kerr County, functions 10 because the fire service supports that system. Kerrville 11 Fire Department's comprised of 74 uniformed personnel and 12 three civilian staff members. Of the 70 emergency response 13 personnel, 49 are certified paramedics, two are EMS 14 intermediate, and 19 are EMT basics. The Kerrville Fire 15 Department has at least 18 certified firefighters on duty 16 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, 365 days out of the year, and 17 they staff three engine companies, one ladder truck, two 911 18 EMS units, and one command unit. This system provides a 19 unique capability for rapidly mobilizing highly-trained 20 emergency medical personnel and to place as many as seven EMS 21 units in service within minutes. These personnel respond to 22 fire, EMS, and rescue calls in the city and the county from 23 four fire stations strategically located throughout the city. 24 All emergency duty personnel are either certified emergency 25 medical technicians, certified intermediate EMS, or certified 3-2-11 jcc 8 1 paramedics or licensed paramedics. 2 These personnel and equipment respond within the 3 city of Kerrville, the Kerrville First Responder area, and 4 into Kerr County for reports of structure, automobile, or 5 grass fires, high water rescues, swift water rescues, motor 6 vehicle accidents, extrications of motor vehicle accidents, 7 electrical shorts, drownings, body recovery, fuel spills, 8 hazardous material leaks responses, high angle, trench and 9 other technical rescue operations, medical responses, 10 malicious and accidental false alarms, and I can just go on 11 and on and on. The emergency management function for both 12 the city and county are performed by the Emergency Management 13 Coordinator and the Assistant Emergency Management 14 Coordinator, who are both city employees. I think I've 15 provided a pretty much basis of what we provide for the city 16 as well as the county. I'm available for any kind of 17 questions that would come up in relation to the EMS and fire 18 service within the city limits of Kerr -- of Kerrville, as 19 well as into the county of Kerr. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Chief Ojeda? 21 CHIEF OJEDA: Yes, sir? 22 JUDGE TINLEY: There's been some discussion and 23 concern among members of Commissioners Court about the tying 24 together of -- of these two operations. I can understand 25 where there's some inter-relation, but with respect to a fire 3-2-11 jcc 9 1 truck, for example, responding to a medical emergency, I note 2 in some of the material that -- I think there's a perception, 3 at least there is in my mind, that when you see an ambulance 4 roll, the next thing you see is a fire truck behind it in a 5 number of instances. 6 CHIEF OJEDA: Yes, sir. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: We see that in the -- in the city 8 very frequently. At least that's what I perceive, looking 9 out a window onto Main Street from my office down at the 10 courthouse. I noticed in -- in the material furnished that 11 there is -- there seems to be a tendency to go in the ETJ 12 area, and only if First Responders are not available, the 13 material indicates that the EMS crew should attempt to 14 expedite transport, call for an engine company to rendezvous 15 within the ETJ. 16 CHIEF OJEDA: Yes, sir. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: So, the -- the incident of a fire 18 truck going out into the county, as it were, with an 19 ambulance from that alone would indicate to me that -- that 20 it's significantly lower than what it is within the city. Is 21 that a correct assumption? 22 CHIEF OJEDA: Yes, sir. That's based on the 23 contract that -- that has been established between the City 24 and the County. Let me just kind of start from the 25 beginning. In the fire service, we tell our customers that 3-2-11 jcc 10 1 perhaps you are calling for an ambulance because you have a 2 medical -- or some sort of medical issue associated with 3 that. And so we may not be sending the right apparatus, but 4 we're sending the right personnel. We'll be sending the 5 paramedics as well as EMS on that engine company to respond 6 to that medical emergency, and then followed up by an EMS 7 unit to come either behind, or sometimes even beat our fire 8 trucks. The reason for that is many of these medical 9 incidents require more hands than -- than we can send simply 10 on an EMS unit, and my -- my people have been empowered to 11 call for those additional resources. 12 So, yes, most of our responses are to the ETJ -- to 13 the border of the ETJ in order to meet up with the medics and 14 provide additional help at that location. When the First 15 Responders aren't able to get there in time, or if they don't 16 show up -- now, there have been incidences, depending on the 17 particular issue, that we have sent a fire truck into the 18 county in extension of the ETJ, and my personnel are 19 empowered to do that, to call for that equipment. It's based 20 on two principles. Primarily, the individuals at the scene 21 know what personnel and equipment they need in order to 22 mitigate the situation, and also, we -- we're concerned about 23 EMS personnel as well as firefighter safety, and so if either 24 of those two issues come up during that incident, then they 25 are empowered to call for additional help, regardless of the 3-2-11 jcc 11 1 location of -- of that incident. 2 And so, generally, most of the time, the paramedics 3 can somewhat stabilize that situation, put the patient in the 4 ambulance, and then call for a fire truck to meet them at the 5 ETJ. If they wait -- because of the -- because of the 6 extension of distance, if they wait for that fire truck to 7 arrive, then they're wasting critical time in getting that 8 patient to the hospital. So, most of that is that they 9 rendezvous at the ETJ. Now, whether they stop at the ETJ, 10 that's probably not the case. They will probably continue 11 down -- say, for instance, Junction Highway, they'll continue 12 down past the ETJ until they meet up with that EMS unit. 13 They don't go up to the ETJ, stop and wait for that EMS unit 14 to arrive. They generally continue on until they meet up 15 with that -- with that EMS unit. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: Would it be fair to say that the -- 17 the occasions that the fire truck goes out past the ETJ into 18 the county, wherever the incident might be, those would be 19 somewhat rare? 20 CHIEF OJEDA: Probably, yes, sir. It seems like 21 it's occurring more and more often. The -- the First 22 Responder program is provided by individuals who are 23 volunteers. They are either at home or at work or at some 24 other location when that call comes in, and they have to 25 respond from those locations. We're finding more and more 3-2-11 jcc 12 1 that the volunteerism in the fire service is dwindling 2 because of people just not volunteering, or distances 3 preclude them from being able to participate. So, we're 4 finding that more and more often, that our units are having 5 to meet EMS units at the ETJ, or actually going into -- into 6 the county. You have to remember that the First Responder 7 program is not in conjunction with the volunteer fire 8 departments. Very few members of the volunteer fire 9 departments are members of the -- of the First Responder 10 program. So, if you're calling for a fire truck from a 11 volunteer fire department, they've got the attitude that 12 they're for fire service and fire service only. Very few 13 members of the volunteer organizations around here in Kerr 14 County are certified emergency medical technicians, and very, 15 very few of them are certified as paramedics. So, even if we 16 call for a volunteer department to respond to that medical 17 emergency, chances are they may have one medically certified 18 individual, or they may have none. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Would it -- would it be correct that 20 more and more, the fire trucks foraying out into the county 21 would be as a result of accidents on I-10? Does that not 22 constitute a -- a fair portion of those? 23 CHIEF OJEDA: No, I don't -- I don't think that 24 it's concentrated on the I-10 area. It's -- it's just all 25 over Kerr County. It's not -- it's not motor vehicle 3-2-11 jcc 13 1 accidents that are requiring them to be there. It's more of 2 the illness type of emergencies, such as heart attacks and 3 strokes and those sort of things, where they're pushing a lot 4 of drugs, needing to monitor the patient extensively, and so 5 that's where the additional hands come in handy. But most of 6 the runs on I-10 probably require fire support based on jaws 7 of life, extrication -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Fuel spills? 9 CHIEF OJEDA: -- extrication of individuals from 10 those vehicles. But from an emergency medical standpoint, I 11 think the illness-type emergencies are what's requiring our 12 firefighters to be present. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Chief, can you, just so I can 14 understand a little bit better, explain, like if a 911 call 15 comes in for a heart attack, what's done by your department, 16 both EMS and fire, in the city limits, in the ETJ, and in the 17 county? 18 CHIEF OJEDA: In the -- in the city limits, 19 depending on how that call comes to dispatch and how the 20 paramedics receive that call, they make the judgment as to 21 whether or not -- it's either made at dispatch or out in the 22 field, as to whether or not to send a fire apparatus. That's 23 dependent on the type of call that comes in, also the 24 response by that EMS unit. If you have an EMS unit that's 25 responding from clear across town, then generally we will 3-2-11 jcc 14 1 send a fire truck to that particular incident, so that they 2 can relay additional information to the unit responding, but 3 more importantly, so that they can begin critical care for 4 that particular individual. 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, just so I understand, what 6 you're saying, basically, is that the -- in the city limits, 7 either -- whoever's closer, either a fire truck or an 8 ambulance is going to be dispatched, you know, first, and 9 then if it's -- if the ambulance is closer, they may call for 10 a fire truck also. 11 CHIEF OJEDA: Yes. But -- 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 13 CHIEF OJEDA: -- the EMS unit will respond -- 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Automatically. 15 CHIEF OJEDA: -- automatically. And then the 16 determination is made at dispatch or with the responding unit 17 as to whether or not they need or want assistance from the 18 fire personal. In the ETJ it works very similar to that. As 19 I said, our people are empowered to -- 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 21 CHIEF OJEDA: -- have a fire unit respond to those 22 incidents. Also, the determination is made as to whether 23 they want to put the helicopter on standby in order to 24 provide transportation to San Antonio, to give that -- if 25 that patient needs that type of -- of care, more than what 3-2-11 jcc 15 1 can be provided here at Peterson Regional. Out in the 2 county, it's strictly -- we will send an EMS unit, and that's 3 what the contract calls for. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The current agreement, if I'm 5 not mistaken, on EMS -- I didn't think it -- does it cover 6 the ETJ? Is that the boundary? I thought it was -- I didn't 7 realize we had a separate ETJ agreement for EMS. 8 CHIEF OJEDA: No, we don't. It's -- it's the 9 entire county for EMS. 10 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So, the -- the -- your 11 department, or City, whoever, has decided to add -- to 12 basically treat the ETJ as more like the city limits, as 13 opposed to the rest of the county. 14 CHIEF OJEDA: Correct, as far as the fire side is 15 concerned. Our personnel are empowered to be able to call 16 for -- 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 18 CHIEF OJEDA: -- individuals to respond out to the 19 ETJ. They will contact dispatch and say, "Have Engine 2 meet 20 us at the ETJ," and they'll respond in that fashion. But 21 I'll guarantee you, they don't stop at the ETJ. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I've got a couple of 24 questions. 25 CHIEF OJEDA: Yes, sir. 3-2-11 jcc 16 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I don't know if they're 2 directed to you or who here, but it's regarding the number. 3 But before we do that, 17 years ago, when the City took over 4 the -- the ambulance service in the fire department, I was on 5 the Commissioners Court and on the committee -- county-wide 6 committee that made those decisions and requested the City 7 take -- take the ambulance service over. And I watched -- 8 through the years, I've watched your department grow into a 9 Triple A, 5-star department, absolutely top-notch, fantastic, 10 none better. So that brings me to my question, though. In 11 these numbers right here, Mr. Mayor, I don't know -- this is 12 from you -- or y'all. I don't know who to address. 13 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just let me ask the 15 question. 16 MAYOR WAMPLER: Throw it out there. 17 CHIEF OJEDA: We have staff here as well to -- 18 hopefully we'll be able to address your... 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: It talks about here, under 20 fire protection services, "County, structure fire, 1." So, 21 I'm assuming that that's one structure run out into the 22 county. It talks about grass and brush and motor vehicles 23 and -- and other things, but there's one. And I think our 24 contract calls -- the contract between City and County, as 25 far as fire service is concerned, I think it calls for a 3-2-11 jcc 17 1 pumper, three men, and I don't know what else, but that's 2 basically the bottom line, I think. So, what I'm reading 3 here, and correct me if I'm wrong, I'm seeing for our 4 $190,000 that we pay the City, we have -- you have one run? 5 CHIEF OJEDA: No, sir. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay, tell me. 7 CHIEF OJEDA: That's strictly into the county. 8 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Excuse me? 9 CHIEF OJEDA: That's into the county, outside of 10 the first response area, which is the old Kerrville South 11 area, which encompasses both areas north and south of the 12 city limits. Do we have the numbers on the structure fires 13 into the -- I believe it's three. 14 MR. BEAVERS: Yeah. The county, outside the fire 15 first response area, was one structure, one brush, and one 16 motor vehicle accident. There were -- 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I just want to deal with the 18 contract. 19 MR. BEAVERS: Yeah. There were 20 other incidents 20 where fire department engines rolled into the county for 21 different -- six incident types not listed. There were 22 actually 129 responses into the first response area by 23 engines for 29 incident types not shown on that as well, 24 including three structures, nine brush fires, and 13 MVA's. 25 So -- 3-2-11 jcc 18 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: What would be an "other"? I 2 mean, what would be a -- not structure, not grass fire, not 3 an accident? 4 CHIEF OJEDA: Electrical short. 5 MR. BEAVERS: Smoke scare. 6 CHIEF OJEDA: Smoke scare. 7 MR. BEAVERS: False alarm. Public assistance. 8 CHIEF OJEDA: Just all-encompassing. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Would that also be an ambulance 10 accompanied -- I mean a fire truck accompanying an ambulance? 11 CHIEF OJEDA: Could be, yes, sir. It's not covered 12 in the structure fire area. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, the contract calls for 14 you to respond with a pumper and three men to a structure 15 fire. 16 CHIEF OJEDA: Initially. 17 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: How many structure fires did 18 you go to outside the city? 19 MR. BEAVERS: According to the data that we 20 provided you, it would be four. Now, there are fires at 21 structures that aren't listed on the NFIRS incident reporting 22 system as a structure fire. So -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What? 24 MR. BEAVERS: If you have a smoke scare, -- 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Mm-hmm. 3-2-11 jcc 19 1 MR. BEAVERS: -- somebody's cooking, their house 2 fills with smoke, that's not listed as a structure fire. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I see. It's not listed as a 4 structure -- 5 MR. BEAVERS: Right. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. 7 CHIEF OJEDA: And that's our initial response, is 8 one engine company. 9 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: So, four -- four runs for 10 the 190,000. See, to me, that's a little bit out of kilter. 11 That's paying too much per run. My thinking is -- and I -- I 12 tie that with this same thinking, not only with the fire 13 service, but with the ambulance service. I would -- instead 14 of paying a flat annual fee, I would rather pay for that 15 particular run. If you have four or five fire truck runs out 16 in the county to a structure fire, that -- as per the 17 contract, I want to pay for those four or five runs. Same 18 thing with the ambulance service. In other words, I want to 19 pay for what we receive, is what I want to do. So, that's my 20 bottom line. And -- 21 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Buster -- Commissioner Baldwin, 22 I'll go with you, but what you're paying for is not the -- 23 the engine run; it's the engine to be there if you need it. 24 Theoretically, if we had no fires at all, you'd pay zero, and 25 we'd still have to staff and equip the fire station. 3-2-11 jcc 20 1 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: But that -- see, that's -- I 2 don't agree with you. I see that that's your equipment. 3 That's the City's equipment. That's the City's employees. 4 That's your tires that goes on your truck, and your 5 insurance. I shouldn't be paying for that. I want to pay 6 for the service that you provide only. 7 COUNCILMAN GROSS: You can't buy a fire truck after 8 the call is made. You got to have it there first. 9 MAYOR WAMPLER: Buster, it's kind of like wanting 10 to buy insurance only when you think you're about to die. 11 "I want to buy life insurance 'cause I got a terminal 12 illness." Let's flip it around. Let's say that the 13 County -- you guys decided to go with an all-volunteer 14 service. You're going to have to allocate money to that 15 volunteer service to get them stood up and equipped in a way 16 to be prepared for the fires when they come. So, no matter 17 how you look at it, you're going to pay something that's not 18 necessarily call-based or call-related. You can't stand up a 19 fire service to fight the fire when the fire's already going. 20 It has to be there, be available all the time, irrespective 21 of the number of -- the intensity of the incidents that it 22 responds to. 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand. 24 MAYOR WAMPLER: And you alluded to it earlier in 25 your comments to the Chief, but over the last 17 years, the 3-2-11 jcc 21 1 service has become what it is today. And part of the reason 2 that it has become what it is today is -- is in preparation 3 for those things that we'd like not to happen, which are 4 fires and bad incidents and people getting sick and needing 5 to go to the hospital. So, we stay equipped for that. 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand exactly what 7 you're saying. I just see that that -- that's your -- that's 8 your business, is to provide that. And we want to pay you 9 for -- for your service of that equipment. 10 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Well, if I could say another 11 word or two, I probably made 200, 300 runs as a First 12 Responder out in the county, and I will tell you that most of 13 the time, the difference between the arrival of the First 14 Responders and the arrival of the box is very, very slight, 15 and so those guys are good. You got to look at that fire 16 engine as a delivery device for trained personnel. You -- if 17 you call the volunteer guys, they're great. I love them, and 18 I've worked with them, and they're wonderful too. But if 19 that -- that engine pulls up, you know you're going to get a 20 paramedic or an EMT. When Kerrville pulls up, you got help. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I understand that. 22 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Real help that can make a 23 difference in someone's life. 24 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I agree 100 percent. That's 25 wonderful. 3-2-11 jcc 22 1 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Buster, let's follow your 2 logic along that way. The County carries insurance, correct? 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I hope so. 4 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: And you pay for that, and 5 hopefully you don't have to use it; isn't that correct? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's correct. 7 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: This is the same thing. It's 8 exactly the same thing. It's paying for a service that you 9 hope you don't have to use. And -- and it's -- it is no 10 different than buying insurance. 11 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Do you -- as the City of 12 Kerrville, you hope that you don't have to call the City of 13 Austin to come help you put out a city of Kerrville fire, but 14 do you pay them? 15 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: We don't ever call them, so 16 we don't pay them. They don't respond. I mean, it's -- 17 that's not logical. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: You call the Forest Service, or 19 have. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Or any other -- 21 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Well, we pay for that. 22 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Just -- I just feel like 23 that we need to be paying for the service, not -- not your 24 equipment and not -- not all those incidental issues that 25 you're talking about. That's just the way I think. I'm not 3-2-11 jcc 23 1 trying to drive anything here. I have not spoken in a number 2 of years at these meetings, and it's my turn. I just -- 3 that's the way I think. And I see this as unfair, and I'm 4 going to -- and I'm going to push our Commissioners Court 5 around in that -- in that line of thinking. 6 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: So, what you're saying, if I 7 hear you -- and I may be wrong, but what I'm hearing is that 8 you want the protection to be there if you need it, but you 9 don't want to pay for it. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, sir, I'm not saying that 11 at all. 12 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: And -- okay. 13 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm saying when your 14 ambulance or fire truck leaves the city limits, I want to be 15 charged for that. I want to pay for that. 16 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: But that's -- that's fine, 17 but the rate is going to be high enough to cover the rest. 18 It has to be, or it can't -- the service can't be there. So, 19 it doesn't make any sense. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Okay. Doesn't make any 21 sense to you, of course, but I understand that. That's good. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Buster, let me -- let me put it in 23 the insurance context. Obviously, if you've got a very 24 high-risk situation, the premium goes up. I mean, that's 25 what insurance is all about, actuarials. What I'm hearing 3-2-11 jcc 24 1 you say is you don't mind buying an insurance policy, but you 2 want the premium to be commensurate with the risk, and if you 3 got one structure fire, four structure fires a year -- let's 4 say there were four. 40,000 to 50,000 per response is a 5 pretty high premium, in your mind? 6 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Yes, sir. Is it in yours? 7 JUDGE TINLEY: I -- I tend to agree with you. 8 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Judge, I don't think your logic 9 quite fits. You're close. You're closer than Buster. 10 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: That's a first. Getting 11 closer. 12 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. 13 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Well, the thing is that in 14 insurance premiums, you can take that down to the nearest 15 cent. You can divide it up in a lot of ways. But with the 16 fire engine, you have one or you don't have one. And we 17 can't give you 3 percent of a fire engine. We have to have 18 the whole darn thing. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, now, let me -- let me go to 20 that issue. And I think that's something that Buster's 21 talked about -- gosh, how many times? You got the front half 22 or the back half -- 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Our half of the ambulance. 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Yeah. Part of what I'm hearing is 25 that the City of Kerrville owns these assets, and they own 3-2-11 jcc 25 1 these assets because they're -- they require them for the 2 purpose of serving their citizens, and they would, quote, own 3 them anyway, in all probability. But the County has no 4 ownership interest in any portion of these assets, no control 5 over the acquisition, no control over the personnel, ad 6 infinitum. But the numbers that we are seeing are dealing 7 with the hard costs, the acquisition. Now, granted, you're 8 going to have to replace your equipment. You're probably 9 going to have to do that anyway. What we are talking about 10 is not absorbing a total portion of the cost of your 11 operations, but rather supplementing your operation, because 12 your operation would be there anyway. And to my thinking, 13 that's what we've done heretofore. Now, in the event there 14 was a decision made, inappropriately, that there was an 15 expansion of the system which was maybe not necessary, or not 16 entirely necessary, therefore the cost of equipment was 17 increased, therefore the personnel cost was increased, we 18 have no control whatever in controlling the size of the 19 system or -- or its expansion or -- or the costs of the 20 personnel, and yet we are being asked to pay a pro rata 21 portion, as it were, of those costs when we have no control 22 over them, or any impact into the decision as to whether 23 they're done or not done. 24 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Let me -- there's several 25 issues that you have kind of brought to the forefront. First 3-2-11 jcc 26 1 of all -- and I don't have the numbers; we can ask staff to 2 do that, but this -- if you take the percentage of the calls 3 versus the percentage of the total cost, and then look at 4 what we're asking you all to fund, it is much less as a 5 percentage than -- than it would be if you took the -- took 6 it on a per-call basis. Secondly, if the County elects to go 7 its own way, separate from the City, the City will, in all 8 probability, have to close one fire station and reduce staff, 9 because we don't have the need for it within the city. So, 10 the allegation that we need it anyway is not true. So 11 that's -- that is just economic fact. But in the meantime, 12 by going to volunteers -- and I think volunteers are great; 13 they do what they can, but they're not there 24/7. They 14 cannot respond as quickly as somebody who is. And it is 15 critical, both from a lifesaving standpoint and from the fire 16 structure or whatever standpoint, to get there as quickly as 17 possible with the right equipment and the right personnel, to 18 handle whatever the emergency is. 19 And I -- I don't mean this to be knocking 20 volunteers, because they -- they do the very best they can 21 do, and I am -- I applaud them for doing that. But there is 22 a difference in the -- in the level of service. And this is 23 the issue that I brought up the last time we met, is do you 24 want to provide to the citizens a lesser level of service 25 than what you're being provided today? If that is what you 3-2-11 jcc 27 1 want, then that's -- that will affect, of course, your cost. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: This -- this thing started to -- to 3 come out of -- to boil over. You mentioned that if we don't 4 participate, that -- that, in all probability, one of the 5 fire stations will have to be closed, and your manning and so 6 forth. We had no input in that decision whether or not that 7 station should have ever come on board. Frankly, in my 8 opinion, that was an improper decision by a prior 9 administration. And it's subsequent to that occurring that 10 suddenly these numbers start soaring up in the power curve. 11 Frankly, we were very happy with -- with the service with 12 three fire stations. I think that if -- if you look at 13 cities of comparable size, population-wise and area-wise, 14 you'll find that using the standard of -- of the standard 15 models, having that fourth fire station is a luxury, and it's 16 beyond what most cities of comparable size and population 17 will have. And that's the elephant in the room. That's the 18 elephant. And it's because of that additional -- additional 19 station that -- that we're all looking at a real economic 20 bugaboo here. And it initially falls on you people, because 21 it's your fire station, but we were not given any input, the 22 right to have input to whether or not there should be that 23 station. But now, in essence, we're being asked to help pay 24 for it, because it's created an economic burden on you. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Judge, I think it even goes 3-2-11 jcc 28 1 further than that. What they're saying is it's our fault 2 that they have to close it, and I don't like the fact that 3 they're trying to push that onto the County. The county -- 4 the agreement we have is one fire truck goes into the county, 5 into the ETJ in certain areas; not talking EMS. So, to come 6 up and say all of a sudden that that one truck in the 7 agreement is going to cause a fire station to be closed is 8 just absurd. If the fire station needs to be closed, maybe 9 it needs to be closed. The other thing, all of a sudden, 10 Bruce, you started talking about volunteers and EMS. We have 11 -- I'm going to get it real clear for the public. We have 12 never looked or are looking at alternative services being 13 volunteer EMS. This will be a professional service, much 14 like Bexar County uses, so there's a real clear distinction 15 there. And I -- many of you have already said this morning 16 that the volunteer fire departments are -- they're 17 volunteers, this and that, and they're really not trained 18 well. I know in Comfort, there are several from city of San 19 Antonio that are volunteer firemen. I think they're probably 20 pretty well trained, you know. 21 JUDGE TINLEY: They came out of your organization, 22 didn't they, Chief? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So I think that -- 24 CHIEF OJEDA: I don't know if that's a fact. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I know. 3-2-11 jcc 29 1 CHIEF OJEDA: I'm not aware of any from San 2 Antonio. 3 COMMISSIONER LETZ: James Allerkamp. So -- but I'm 4 saying, you know, volunteers have done a very -- you know, a 5 phenomenal job. Ingram Fire Department is phenomenal. 6 Mountain Home has a good one, I know. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Divide has a new one. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Divide, Comfort. They're 9 pretty amazing, what they've done. And they respond 24 hours 10 a day, day and night. They get there quickly. So, you know, 11 I want to make it real clear, the fire service that our 12 volunteer fire departments provide is outstanding, and they 13 are volunteers, but they take it very seriously. And 14 actually, they're not all volunteers in Comfort. The -- kind 15 of the head of that department's paid by Kendall County, Dan 16 Morales. So, anyway -- 17 CHIEF OJEDA: If I could clear up some issues, in 18 2010 we responded to 156 calls for various types of incidents 19 in the first response area, which is the old Kerrville South 20 area, and into the county we responded to 23 incidents, 21 bringing it to a total of 179. So we are -- regardless of 22 whether that's a structure fire, a high water rescue or a 23 vehicle accident, it still requires us to provide at least 24 one engine company to each of those 179 calls. Now, I say at 25 least one engine company, because as I told you at 3-2-11 jcc 30 1 Commissioners Court, I guess, back in September, is that we 2 had an incident recently to that time that we had a structure 3 fire out in Kerrville South. We sent two engine companies, 4 one ladder truck, and a command vehicle, and then we had 22 5 firefighters from Kerrville at that scene. I guarantee you, 6 we don't ride 22 people on three fire trucks. So, we did 7 call individuals off duty. We incurred that expense on 8 overtime on that one particular call. As you recall, shortly 9 before that, we had the high water rescue incident out in 10 Hunt where we dedicated at least six to eight individuals, 11 depending on the time frame, to that particular incident. 12 And, unfortunately, we had one individual that drowned; I 13 think he was a board member of one of the school districts 14 out in that area. And we plucked a female from a tree that 15 was -- she had been washed out of her vehicle at that 16 incident. And so it involves more than just one fire truck 17 and three people. 18 COUNCILMAN GROSS: You've got to understand that 19 the volunteer fire department doesn't get there as soon as 20 the First Responders do, EMS. Most of the time, the box can 21 be -- can be by the margin. If you call for the volunteers, 22 they got to go get their truck, and that takes some time. I 23 think it would be a serious degradation of care. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, that's your opinion. 25 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Well, it's my opinion. 3-2-11 jcc 31 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I will say that those of us 2 who have chosen to live away from the city of Kerrville, 3 outside there and away from town, have made certain choices, 4 one of those being that we know that we're not going to get 5 care quickly enough if we are in a heart attack situation or 6 it's a life-and-death thing. You or a First Responder is 7 probably not going to either one make it, unless you have a 8 family member that can take care of you or something. But we 9 accept certain responsibility for that. And I don't know of 10 any houses that have been saved, that were not almost total 11 losses when any fire department gets there, any kind of 12 structure fire. All you're really doing by the time they get 13 there, you're saving other things. Those structures are 14 gone. If my house catches on fire, I'll guarantee you, 15 Mountain Home Fire Department will be there before Kerrville. 16 It'll -- the result will be the same; my house will be a 17 total loss. And so, you know, there's certain -- there's 18 certain parts of this -- your ISO rating thing, that doesn't 19 extend out into the rest of the county because we contract 20 fire service with y'all. We still have those low ratings, 21 just like our volunteer fire departments are rated such. 22 You're -- that is -- I don't believe that that is true and 23 correct information, whenever you're saying that we get -- we 24 benefit -- the residents outside the city of Kerrville get a 25 direct huge benefit on their insurance premiums because we 3-2-11 jcc 32 1 contract with the City of Kerrville. 2 CHIEF OJEDA: They do. 3 MAYOR WAMPLER: Bruce, they do. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I don't see it, man. I've 5 lived here a long time, bud. 6 MAYOR WAMPLER: They do within the 78028 zip code, 7 so within the ETJ -- most of the ETJ. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay, you're talking about 9 the ETJ, but we're not talking about the entire county. 10 We're talking about that area. 11 MAYOR WAMPLER: You got 17,000 county residents 12 living in the ETJ in the 78028 zip code that would benefit 13 from the lower ISO rating. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But what is their rating? 15 It's not the same as the City of Kerrville. 16 CHIEF OJEDA: Yes, it is. 17 MAYOR WAMPLER: It's 2. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: It's a 2, not a 1. 19 MAYOR WAMPLER: We don't have 1. There's only 20 one-tenth of 1 percent of the cities in the entire country 21 that are a 1. We're a 2. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm sorry. 23 MAYOR WAMPLER: No, sir, we're a 2. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And also -- this is the way I 25 put things in perspective. I'm pretty common, as you well 3-2-11 jcc 33 1 know. You're spending $6.2 million on public safety. And I 2 guess that's probably your police department. 3 MAYOR WAMPLER: That's combined. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's combined with what? 5 Because you have -- 6 MAYOR WAMPLER: Police, fire, and EMS. 7 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: This is fire and EMS, 6.2 8 million. That's over one and a half million dollars per fire 9 station per year. We have -- the county jail and the entire 10 Sheriff's Department doesn't cost that much. So, it seems to 11 me like there's a -- there's a big difference in cost to what 12 is reality. I think you're -- now, that's just my opinion. 13 I think you're overspending, I think, kind of like what the 14 Judge says, and you're asking us to pay a bigger share of -- 15 of something that we didn't ask for. We're looking for a 16 contract. In a contract for service, you pay a certain 17 amount. You either agree to pay it or you don't, and that's 18 kind of where we are, and I think you're asking too much. 19 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. And I don't think there's 20 any disagreement on that at all, on that last point, you 21 know, that that's where we're at. So -- 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So I don't -- you know, I 23 don't know what else there is. And the thing -- the other 24 thing is that some of this is kind of hard to read. It's 25 easier if you put it on a spreadsheet like this. Be real 3-2-11 jcc 34 1 easy for me to understand it better if the revenues generated 2 by EMS were taken away from -- or at least made part of your 3 -- your budgeted expense. I mean, you do have revenue. EMS 4 creates revenue -- generates revenue, lots of it. 5 MAYOR WAMPLER: The revenues are netted into the 6 expense. Not only the revenues -- direct revenues associated 7 with the actual EMS runs, but also the transfer revenues. 8 So, in the EMS -- 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: So, where is that -- what is 10 that number? What is your total -- what is your total 11 revenue for EMS, transfers, all -- all revenues? What are 12 they? 13 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Mike's coming up. 14 CHIEF OJEDA: Either that, or maybe Eric. 15 MR. ERWIN: Eric can look at it from the 16 operations; I can look at it from the financial side. 17 Basically, we've looked at this. We've looked at revenue. 18 Now, there's two different parts of the EMS revenue, of which 19 one has been split equally in prior years, and that's the 20 transfers. You know, because basically 99 percent of the 21 transfers originate within the city, and with the majority of 22 those originating from Peterson Hospital. Then after that, 23 we have EMS runs in the county, EMS runs in the city. And so 24 as we've taken a look at the numbers, we've come up with 25 this. What we've done is, we looked at what kind of revenue 3-2-11 jcc 35 1 does the county runs generate? What kind of revenue does the 2 city EMS runs generate? And then what kind of revenue is 3 generated from transfers? And so, yes, we have applied the 4 revenue to the calculation. And -- 5 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But what are the revenues? 6 Tell me what the total revenues from -- from the transfers 7 from inside the city, outside, the whole ball of wax. 8 MR. ERWIN: Okay. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What's your total revenue 10 generated? 11 MR. ERWIN: Okay. In the '11 budget, it's about 12 $2,064,000 is what we've estimated for the total revenues. 13 Of that, we say about 750,000 are generated from the 14 transfers, so you take that out. That leaves about 15 $1,250,000. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Why do you take it out? 17 MR. ERWIN: Because -- 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's part of that -- that's 19 part of your overall EMS service. 20 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: The terminology "take it out" 21 isn't what he's saying. He's trying to make it -- 22 MAYOR WAMPLER: It's in. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I can understand; I don't 24 need an explanation of that. I can listen to him here. 25 MR. ERWIN: They're generated in the city, so when 3-2-11 jcc 36 1 we're looking at county costs versus city costs, we also look 2 at revenues that are generated in the city versus revenues 3 that are generated in the county. 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, in my mind, you take 5 all revenues generated to that, and that factors into your 6 overall -- what you're going to spend on the service for the 7 year. 8 CHIEF OJEDA: That's what we've done. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You should, in my opinion, 10 try to work with those numbers that you generate, and not go 11 over budget. 12 MR. ERWIN: Okay. 13 JUDGE TINLEY: What are the projections for the 14 city EMS revenues and the county EMS revenues? Or the 2010 15 numbers, actually? 16 MR. ERWIN: The way we've looked at it, you look at 17 the 2,060,000 that we talked about; you take out 750,000. 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 19 MR. ERWIN: Leaves you about 1.2, okay? Then from 20 there, you split it between the percentage of city runs to 21 county runs, which typically works out somewhere around 22 two-thirds/one-third. So, you generate somewhere around 23 450,000 of revenue in the county. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm just saying that in 25 simple fact, this is a business thing. This has nothing to 3-2-11 jcc 37 1 do with personal thought about anything. It's just like you 2 in your business; if you don't feel like your numbers that 3 you're getting are correct, you're not going to do the deal. 4 And -- and if you get things that are one-sided too much, 5 you're not going to do the deal. It's got to be able to work 6 for both of us, because, hell, we're all in this all 7 together, and we want -- I mean, you do provide a great 8 service, but the basic service for fire is provided by our 9 volunteer fire departments. We don't expect you to do that. 10 And I'll tell you what, they do a heck of a good job, and 11 they get $15,000 a year a piece. If you total all that up, 12 it's not as much as we pay y'all for one fire truck. That's 13 the facts. And there's a whole lot of those firefighters 14 that are now getting certified, and they're being trained, 15 'cause they can't drive vehicles without it for insurance 16 purposes. What do you got there, Judge? 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Just running some numbers. About 18 430,000 revenue, county, based upon two-thirds/one-third. 86 19 outside of the excess over the 750 transfer. 20 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Just a question -- two 21 questions I have. I saw Mike Hayes back there; just make 22 sure he's on his toes. In the ETJ, I know -- well, I 23 understand there's an ordinance, I guess is what it is, that 24 only the City can operate an ambulance in the city limits. I 25 think it's an ordinance. Does that expand into the ETJ? 3-2-11 jcc 38 1 MAYOR WAMPLER: Not sure. 2 MR. HAYES: I'm not sure. 3 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: I'm not sure. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I had one question for you, 5 Mike, and it's something I'd be interested to know, 'cause 6 when we look at -- I'm not sure, Buster. Someone talked to 7 someone; it was a gray area as to how the ETJ was handled 8 with ambulances and -- and the city ordinance. The other 9 question, how does the -- the two AirLIFE services fit into 10 this mix? Does the City get revenue from those EMS services, 11 and how do they operate with the ordinance that the city 12 currently has? Because they operate in the city, and the 13 ordinance says they can't. Just -- 14 MAYOR WAMPLER: Number one, I don't believe we 15 received any revenue whatsoever from either one of them, so 16 as far as how they operate, what -- if there's -- I don't 17 believe we have a franchise agreement. I think the hospital 18 has a contract with one or the other of them. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it's just -- okay. 20 CHIEF OJEDA: The patient will receive a bill from 21 us as well as from the AirLIFE or Air Evac, individuals who 22 have -- will have a transport fee associated with that, 23 because we will be transporting that individual to the 24 landing zone where the helicopter lands. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 3-2-11 jcc 39 1 CHIEF OJEDA: So, they will receive a bill from us 2 and then a bill from -- from the -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, here's another 4 question. This has -- 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: All right, thank you. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: -- occurred to me as well. 7 Now, I know you have the ordinance that -- that prohibits 8 more than one service, and it's your own working in the city. 9 So, what happens if we contract with an outside service? Are 10 they allowed to bring patients to Peterson Hospital, inside 11 the city? 12 MAYOR WAMPLER: Yes. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Are they allowed to do 14 transfers out of Peterson Hospital out of the city? 15 MAYOR WAMPLER: Maybe not. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: What if the patient's a county -- a 17 resident outside the corporate limits of the city of 18 Kerrville? 19 CHIEF OJEDA: I think they originated from within 20 the city limits of Kerrville. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think these are issues that I 22 think I'd like to get an official position from the City on. 23 Maybe -- maybe the nod of the head or shake of the head was 24 the official position. But those are things that I think 25 we're going to have to know going forward and looking at 3-2-11 jcc 40 1 other options. 2 MR. PARTON: We do currently have an agreement with 3 Peterson Regional Medical Center that we have the first right 4 of refusal to provide service to them, and our agreement with 5 them is to keep ICU and ER clear. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess that means that if we 7 contract with somebody, they'll have to go to Fredericksburg 8 or San Antonio. 9 CHIEF OJEDA: To transport? They'll be -- 10 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If they want to be cared for 11 with somebody besides city of Kerrville. 12 MAYOR WAMPLER: No, that's just not true. I mean, 13 if somebody gets picked up and they want to be taken to the 14 hospital, they can be taken to Sid Peterson Hospital. I 15 mean -- 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: But they can't be taken from 17 there unless the City takes them, because you have the 18 ordinance and you're -- you have -- 19 MAYOR WAMPLER: We have an agreement with the 20 hospital to provide transfers. 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Okay. 22 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But there's other -- I mean, I 23 see -- 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: What is the -- go ahead. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I see Southern -- I think 3-2-11 jcc 41 1 Southern Cross ambulances leaving. How do they get -- what 2 are they doing, just driving through town? I think it's 3 Southern Cross. And I presume that they're -- I see them 4 coming in and leaving, so I presume they're moving a person. 5 MAYOR WAMPLER: You know, Jon, I don't know. I 6 would guess -- I think there are some transfers that take 7 place in Junction and Bandera, some of the smaller hospitals 8 in the area that are bringing patients to Sid Pete. 9 CHIEF OJEDA: They may be going to or from a 10 nursing home facility. 11 COUNCILMAN GROSS: And we might have a 12 certification difference too. They may be B.L.S. and not 13 A.L.S. 14 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Could be a voluntary thing. 15 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Could be. 16 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Anyway, all those things, I 17 think it would be helpful for us to, you know, get a handle 18 on. 19 MAYOR WAMPLER: Any other comments or questions on 20 emergency services? 21 JUDGE TINLEY: Now that we got the easy one out of 22 the way, right? 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: One more, Judge, before we go 24 off of that. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Can't be that easy. 3-2-11 jcc 42 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Can't be that easy. On the -- 2 when I listened to the Chief early on talking about the 3 services in the city, ETJ, and county, it seems that the City 4 has increased the level of service in the ETJ above what our 5 contract currently is, and I'm wondering, why can't we go 6 back to what the contract says? As opposed to, you know -- 7 you know, what's being done? 8 CHIEF OJEDA: To me, it's an operational issue, is 9 that our people know what they need in order to provide the 10 service that they -- that the customer needs, as well as they 11 know what they need for their particular safety issues. And 12 if that calls for us sending a fire truck to Boerne, then we 13 probably will do that. If our firefighters feel like they 14 need -- for some reason, they need that assistance, then we 15 will send the unit there. I'd rather err on that side than 16 on the -- on another side. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I understand -- I mean, 18 obviously, you're trying to -- you're trying to run a 19 top-notch department and watch out for your employees. I 20 understand. And your equipment and everything else; I 21 understand that. But yet there's a big dropoff on what goes 22 into the county. So, it's okay for the -- you know, all of 23 the things that you're watching out for and making decisions 24 to add on more on the ETJ, but it's still okay to send 25 personnel out into the county without those issues, and to 3-2-11 jcc 43 1 me, that's a disconnect. Either, you know, as to why there 2 seems to be a greater level of service in the ETJ than in the 3 county. It's purely -- it's not a budget issue and a 4 contract issue as opposed to a truly operational -- 5 CHIEF OJEDA: We provide service out into the 6 county simply because a volunteer department will contact us 7 and say they need our assistance, so we will respond on those 8 conditions outside the county. We have a contractual 9 responsibility to provide service to the first response area, 10 which is the old Kerrville South -- 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Right. 12 CHIEF OJEDA: -- area. And then we feel that -- 13 that we have a responsibility to provide a limited amount of 14 service out into the ETJ. Now, we cover -- as far as on the 15 EMS side, we cover the entire county, so that based on the 16 contract, with the exception of -- we have a small provision 17 over out in the Falling Waters area where you have contracted 18 with Kendall County to provide EMS service on the First 19 Responder basis there. We are basically become the secondary 20 response there. And not -- 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're also that way at 22 the -- 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Far west. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Way out in the Y.O. 25 Ranchlands. I mean, we don't have a formal contract with 3-2-11 jcc 44 1 Kendall County, but they provide EMS and fire services along 2 with Kimble County, Divide. 3 CHIEF OJEDA: And I think that contract is for 4 $3,000, and there's probably about 200 people out there. So, 5 per capita, it comes out to about 15 -- $15 and some change 6 per capita out there. And I think the figures we came up 7 with here, the per capita out in the county is somewhere 8 around $7 or $8 per. 9 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And just for the record, the -- 10 I've heard -- once these discussions hit the paper, I heard 11 from many people in Falling Waters that whatever the County 12 does, they want to keep Kendall County. They are -- and it's 13 a time issue to them. They are extremely happy with the 14 service that they can get. And it's not the level of 15 service, I think, as much as it is the response time. And 16 they -- they feel that having an ambulance in Comfort is 17 their number-one priority, and they've let me know that 18 pretty much loud and clear. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: Let me -- let me offer an 20 explanation, and I failed to do it when we opened the 21 meeting. Of course, Commissioner Overby's not here today. 22 Commissioner Overby is on the board at Alamo Area Council of 23 Governments. He's our designated representative. This is 24 their regular meeting time for that board, and so that's 25 where he is. He's looking out for the county's interests 3-2-11 jcc 45 1 down there, the folks that seem to have a bigger checkbook 2 than anybody else in the area. So, that's what that one's 3 all about. I wanted everybody to be aware of that. 4 CHIEF OJEDA: As far as ISO, I've contacted ISO and 5 asked them some questions, is that the county residents that 6 do get -- get to take advantage of the ISO rating, that the 7 city of Kerrville will not get that benefit should we not 8 provide fire service in those areas. I'm talking about the 9 Kerrville South area, both north and south of the city limits 10 of Kerrville. So, those heavily populated areas that are 11 currently getting an ISO rating of 2 will no longer be 12 getting that. It will probably fall to a 9 or 10, depending 13 on their particular location. 14 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Chief, what does that mean in 15 terms of dollars per year, per household? 16 CHIEF OJEDA: It depends on the type of structure. 17 There are various percentages and increases in insurance 18 based on the construction of the -- of the building, whether 19 it's brick veneer, brick, wood frame construction, but it can 20 be anywhere from 35 to 85 percent increase in -- in insurance 21 premiums. 22 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Pays for a fire truck. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Be interesting to get the 24 real numbers instead of assumptions. 25 CHIEF OJEDA: I've got a chart that'll help you 3-2-11 jcc 46 1 with that. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Not -- I also visited -- when 3 this came up last time, I talked with some of the local 4 insurance companies, and they disagree with that, but that's 5 a different issue. 6 CHIEF OJEDA: I got a call from an individual at 7 Nationwide Insurance Company that called me about a 8 particular address, and I informed her that we would not 9 provide -- it's not in our first response area; that it was 10 in Turtle Creek Volunteer Fire Department's response area. 11 And I told her that it was 5 miles outside of our First 12 Responder unit, which really didn't matter, because Turtle 13 Creek is the First Responder unit there. So, I told her that 14 it would probably be a 9 or a 10, and she said it looks like 15 it would be a 10, but she could not write a 10, so therefore 16 she was going to have to inform him that they were not going 17 to be able to get insurance with them. And there's more -- 18 in talking to Mr. Pietsch, who's the ISO consultant, he's 19 saying that there's a lot more insurance companies that -- 20 upon renewals, that they're not writing insurance premiums -- 21 insurance for residents that have a 10 associated with their 22 ISO. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: That means no more growth in 24 the county. 25 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I guess I won't be able to 3-2-11 jcc 47 1 get insurance any more. They send me a premium notice every 2 year, and I pay it. 3 CHIEF OJEDA: Not all of them, but some of them are 4 moving into that area. I guess their losses have been 5 increasing, and so they're not wanting to write those riskier 6 policies. I can only tell you what -- the information that I 7 receive. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I tell you what reality is. 9 I've lived in the country all my life, and I know what the 10 costs are, and I don't think my premium will be one dime less 11 if I lived inside the city of Kerrville, especially if you 12 factor in all the other costs that it costs to live in the 13 city. So, I feel like I'm pretty -- pretty well-off. 14 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Mayor, have we wrung that one 15 out about all we can do for now? 16 MAYOR WAMPLER: I'm thinking we probably have. 17 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. Let's go to -- let's go to 18 library. That's probably the next most contentious issue. 19 At least my perception, it is. The proposal by the City is 20 that -- that we split the cost of library operation. 21 Heretofore, over the last three years, we have systematically 22 declined our contribution from something -- $400,000 or 23 slightly more than that down to $200,000. And that was, at 24 least in part, I understand, based upon our assumption of a 25 greater responsibility in two other areas, that being animal 3-2-11 jcc 48 1 control and airport. Level of services is -- I don't think 2 that's been the formula heretofore. But by way of 3 clarification, the proposal which the City has submitted, in 4 addition to splitting the library, would be to also split the 5 cost of maintenance and operation at the airport, but to 6 continue to assume all of the costs associated with animal 7 control. So, relative to what's occurred over the last three 8 years, those would be the changes in two respects, and no 9 change in another respect. 10 I -- I think the concern that we have with respect 11 to the library is in some respects similar to fire and EMS. 12 You've got all of the assets owned by the city, all of the 13 operations controlled by the city. Costs are controlled by 14 the City, and we -- we have no control over any of those, yet 15 we're being asked to pay half the costs as determined by 16 someone else. Of particular note is that as our -- as our 17 contribution declined in the last couple of years, 18 apparently, rather than the total amount remaining the same, 19 the City found it necessary to reduce the overall cost of the 20 overall budget for the library operation. I think that's 21 concerning from the standpoint of if you're able to do it 22 then -- you know, why weren't you able to do it then, 23 possibly? That question comes to mind. But as I indicated 24 to you when we met last Friday, irrespective of what we're 25 talking about in terms of -- of utilization of services, the 3-2-11 jcc 49 1 whole thing's probably going to come down to a bottom line 2 number, and there's going to be some trade-offs involved, 3 just like there was three years ago when we kind of, sort of 4 put this to bed for three years. I'd like to put it to bed 5 for another three or more years. 6 MAYOR WAMPLER: We would too, Judge. But the 7 position, I think, that we're going to take -- and I 8 certainly can't speak for everybody here, and anybody else 9 that would like to can -- can put their voice on it, but in 10 our mind, I believe the quid pro quo approach to funding -- 11 City funding one or two things and the County funding others 12 to try to meet in the middle has not worked on a couple of 13 levels, and I don't believe that we're going to be interested 14 in going back to that approach and looking at the total 15 funding amount and trying to split it amongst the operations. 16 As far as ownership of the assets at the library, you know, 17 if the County would like to own the library, we'd certainly 18 listen to any offers you might want to make on purchasing the 19 library. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Can we trade you the jail for it? 21 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, that's a trade-off. 22 MAYOR WAMPLER: So, you know, we look at -- you 23 know, whether it's the library, the swimming pool, or the 24 park system or any other amenities or things that people have 25 in mind when they think of living in the city or out, but 3-2-11 jcc 50 1 want to avail themselves of those services, there's a cost 2 associated with those to maintain them. We have a new system 3 in place, as you might know, that -- for handling checkouts 4 and registrations and so forth and so on, an updated system, 5 and I think so far, 44 percent of the -- of the registered 6 users of the library who have cards are county residents. 7 We've got, I don't know, 3, 4, 5 percent of people that do 8 not live either in the city or the county, and the balance 9 are city residents. So, from a standpoint of usage, or at 10 least enjoyment of that amenity, it seems pretty -- pretty 11 well evenly split. Again, I understand what you're saying 12 from the standpoint of cost, and certainly, if a library is 13 not something that the County Commissioners feel that is 14 important to their citizens, or is an important funding 15 issue, you know, I get that. I don't have any control over 16 what you decide to fund or not. 17 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Mayor, I have a slightly 18 different look at that. Every one of the city citizens is a 19 county citizen too. 20 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No question. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think the -- and I serve on 22 the -- I guess as the liaison to the library, and I was very 23 -- we worked a lot about three years ago when we came up with 24 that plan. And the problem I've always had, and I think I 25 outlined that -- we outlined to y'all in a letter, which was 3-2-11 jcc 51 1 ignored basically, in our profile as to things -- changes 2 that may change the funding mechanism -- 3 MAYOR WAMPLER: Jon, let me stop you there for a 4 second. You're talking about after our last meeting? That 5 was not ignored. We did not ignore it. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But it wasn't -- it came back 7 without any response. And -- 8 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well -- well, wait. Wait a minute. 9 Come on, now. Listen. We -- at our last meeting, we talked 10 about a work order flow in terms of what the City was going 11 to do to provide information to -- to look at all the 12 programs that were under discussion, and a timeline. The 13 County Commissioners -- we were submitted a bunch of 14 admittedly random comments. It was even said at the 15 beginning -- at the bottom, this is not an official county 16 document. This does not represent the opinion of the Court. 17 These are random -- I can't remember the exact words, but 18 random comments made by some of the Commissioners. And those 19 questions have -- have been discussed and have been answered. 20 They were not ignored. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. Well, they were not 22 directly responded to. I wrote a large part of that, and I 23 wrote that at the request at the last meeting of City staff, 24 and you included, Mayor. So, you know, we responded. I 25 thought at that meeting, we were going to get the same thing 3-2-11 jcc 52 1 from the City, and we didn't. We got a letter three weeks 2 later or four weeks later, whatever it was. So, anyway, 3 that's neither here nor there. Library. The problem we had 4 previously was that every year, when the funding time came to 5 the library, the County wanted to give some input as to -- 6 and budget's already, you know, more of an issue than 7 probably four or five years ago. And we'd come up with ideas 8 to cut back ours. "Oh, well, maybe we could look at staffing 9 a little bit, or do this a little different." No. "Maybe we 10 could talk to Schreiner about some kind of agreement." No. 11 The City never had any interest in -- in the County having 12 any operational say of how the library was run, other than, 13 "Give us half the amount." And that's just not acceptable. 14 So, the -- my position is that, you know, I think 15 the library is very important, but the County -- I'm not 16 going to support the County spending half of that budget 17 unless we have half the say in that library. And right now, 18 it's going to -- the library is going down. A whole lot of 19 things have happened in the last three years. We were never 20 talked to about any of them. We were advised of them, but we 21 were never asked, really, for much of our input as a 22 Commissioners Court. I have met with members of the 23 foundation as an individual Commissioner, and obviously, I go 24 to Library Advisory Board meetings. And I think even that 25 board has some concerns right now as to its purpose, the way 3-2-11 jcc 53 1 the library is being run. So, to me, you know, if the City 2 has a choice, if they want us to be a partner in the library, 3 come talk to us. If you don't -- and I mean a real partner. 4 If you don't, the funding's going to be similar to what we're 5 doing. I think a 200,000 contribution is pretty generous. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I agree. I believe that was 7 negotiated down by us taking on other things. We took on 8 animal control. We took on airport. So, you know, you can't 9 -- I don't think it's fair that we take and do certain 10 things, and then y'all come back and you want us to increase 11 funding, yet we -- we agreed and we did it, and we're doing 12 it. We did exactly what we said we'd do, and I just don't 13 see that that -- that should change. 14 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, and again, those -- those 15 contracts have been in place for three years, and now is the 16 time to renegotiate those contracts. So -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's what we're 18 supposed to be doing. 19 COUNCILMAN GROSS: I really hate to disappoint you, 20 but I agree with you. 21 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Dadgumit. Try again. 22 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Did he say he disagreed? 23 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: No, he agrees. 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Oh, he agrees. 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You can't have that, can 3-2-11 jcc 54 1 you? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No, we can't have that. 3 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Want to change your mind? 4 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: No. 5 COUNCILMAN GROSS: When the library as its known 6 today was established, Mr. Butt was so concerned about the 7 fact that we were not in agreement that he put the then 8 County Commissioners and the City Council on his plane going 9 down to Rockport to discuss this issue. I think he 10 realized -- or he thought that having a city/county 11 library -- free library was important to not just the city, 12 but to the county. And I think there's no way we can 13 consider ourselves a world-class city or a world-class county 14 unless we have at least a first-class library. And having 15 input from all parties concerned seems right and fair to me. 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I just don't think -- 17 if the bargain was struck between the City and the County at 18 the time, and that's what Mr. Butt wanted, then that's what 19 was agreed to. That was all fine and good, but I -- I bet 20 you at the time they both had real input to what the funding 21 levels were going to be, and the staffing levels, because 22 they were both responsible to pay for it. And I can tell you 23 that we have never had any input as far as staffing levels, 24 pay, or anything -- benefits, number of operating hours. 25 None of that has ever been a decision that we were given to 3-2-11 jcc 55 1 make. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think one other point that, 3 you know, we sent over in our stack of stuff was that we said 4 three years ago -- and I think I said it again then, that I 5 think a library district is the way to go in the future. 6 Take the library out of the City's budget, put it in a 7 separate entity and let the voters have a board, with the 8 taxing authority to run it. And I think that is a -- you 9 know, it's, in a way, what has happened at the airport. They 10 don't have a taxing authority, but it's -- it's proved 11 extremely effective there, and I think it's a good model to 12 have a library district. And, you know, I certainly would do 13 what I could do to get that to the voters. I think it is a 14 way to insure funding, insure the whole process to work 15 right. You know, you're talking about county residents. It 16 would be a county tax, if the county wants it, and I think 17 that is an approach that I brought up three years ago. City 18 had no interest in it. And I -- I'll bring it up again this 19 year. I think it is a very viable option. 20 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: Now, Jonathan, I'm not saying I 21 disagree with you, but contrary to popular belief, I do see 22 people that talk to me occasionally. They're not all... 23 (Laughter.) The biggest concern that I've heard over the 24 last six weeks, or however long it's been since the ESD was 25 brought up -- emergency services district, the concern was 3-2-11 jcc 56 1 not so much the taxing authority. They see the benefit of 2 that. But the big concern was, is that same amount of tax 3 going to be taken off of my -- my other property taxes, and 4 stay off? Or is it going to go off for a year, and then the 5 next year it's going to come back in another form? And 6 that's a big concern that I keep hearing. 7 JUDGE TINLEY: From the county standpoint, that is 8 exactly what would occur. And like you, I've recently 9 heard -- after this ESD thing was back at the forefront here 10 a few weeks ago, we hear about double taxation. The key is 11 taking it -- taking that function off of the regular overall 12 operational budget, but putting that over there with that 13 ESD. And -- and we hear about, "Well, we in the city, we pay 14 county taxes too." Everybody pays the one tax, and you get 15 rid of that assertion, valid or otherwise, but you get rid of 16 it. But you're right. If -- if we come back and add it 17 somewhere else, and -- 18 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: That's where the lynch mob's 19 going to start. 20 JUDGE TINLEY: Absolutely. And it should. It 21 should start. And if you're transferring the function over 22 to a specialized board, just as we've done with that airport 23 out there, let -- let those folks -- keep it out of the 24 political arena to the extent that you can. Obviously, 25 you're going to have to put people on the board, but beyond 3-2-11 jcc 57 1 that, let them run that. Let them find the best service at 2 the best cost to provide for everybody, county-wide. That's 3 where I think it's really in the best interests to have a 4 county-wide ESD. But you're exactly right; you must take it 5 off those other budgets, or -- or you're not doing the 6 service and -- and taking care of your constituents like you 7 should. That's the bottom line. You're exactly right. 8 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: And my point in that was that 9 it's going to be a hard sell, whether it be ESD, library 10 board or whatever, to convince those folks to trust us that 11 that tax is going to come off, and it will stay off. 12 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: Well, -- 13 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: I'm not saying it's impossible. 14 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: -- we won't have anything to 15 do with it unless it comes out of our budget; I can tell you 16 that. 17 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Buster, I agree that -- and 18 the Judge is correct that the bottom line is the constituents 19 that -- and the -- we and the County -- the City and the 20 County are both facing a very, very tight budget year coming 21 up. And having a separate board, while it may sound good in 22 the initial stages, and the concern from the -- that we're 23 hearing -- and I'm hearing the same thing Gene is about that. 24 Having a separate board doesn't -- if you take that off of 25 the other, doesn't create any increase in funding, which is 3-2-11 jcc 58 1 what the problem is today. And that's -- that's the concern. 2 And they -- rightly so, they have a concern. 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I'm going to tell you what 4 the real concern is. We're short of revenue, and we're going 5 to have to start cutting more services. That's where we are. 6 And I think that y'all are facing the same thing. 7 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: We are. 8 COUNCILMAN ALLEN: As we did last year. 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's right. We did too. 10 Believe me, we cut a lot, and hurt our employees by doing 11 what we had to do on our health insurance. Let me tell you 12 something; it can get worse. 13 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: It will. 14 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Look nationwide at what's 15 happening. You know, whether you want to or not, you're 16 going to have to admit at some point you're spending too much 17 money, and you're going to have to cut the spending, even if 18 it -- even if you have to cut services. You can't -- and you 19 can't pass the buck on to somebody else and say, "Well, we 20 don't have the money here, so we're going to get it from the 21 County." It ain't going to work, because we don't have the 22 money. That's -- that's the bottom line. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: Same thing has happened to both of 24 us. The feds say, "We're short, so we're going to transfer 25 that obligation to the State." The State says, "We're short, 3-2-11 jcc 59 1 so we're going..." So-called first rule in plumbing, comes 2 right down -- right down to local government. We're at the 3 end -- we're at the end of the trail. 4 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: That's right. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: And it falls on both of us. So, you 6 know, the back-and-forth as between the two of us, maybe 7 consolidation is -- is the issue. Who knows? 8 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: It's been floated before. 9 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I know, but it hasn't gotten 10 very far. But in terms of the economics, pooling the 11 economics, that obviously would be a solution. But -- but 12 it's got -- it's got to be cured all the way up the line. We 13 cannot continue to have these things pushed down to us with 14 the expectation that we'll continue to fund services, because 15 there's a limit to what our constituents will take before the 16 lynch mob forms, as Gene said. 17 MAYOR WAMPLER: I prefer to look at it in a 18 different way. I'm not looking at this in terms of a budget 19 crisis or the economic -- the economic realities out there. 20 This is getting back to something that Commissioner Oehler 21 alluded to earlier about not continuing to do something that 22 doesn't make sense. And on the fire side, you go back 20 23 years, plus or minus, when the City and the County got 24 together for the City to provide First Responder fire service 25 in the county. I believe the original cost was $75,000 a 3-2-11 jcc 60 1 year. 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: And that was exorbitant. 3 MAYOR WAMPLER: Today it's $190,500, and on an 4 inflation-adjusted basis, you're paying -- the County is 5 paying the exact same amount of money today that you paid 20 6 years ago. At the same time, I think we just saw the census 7 figures, where county -- the county population has grown by 8 14 percent or so. The city limits of the city of Kerrville 9 are about 18 square miles. The county's 1,100 square miles. 10 The demand continues to grow. The need to stay equipped and 11 staffed in order to meet the demands that we've already been 12 able to show here in the last year -- not only that, but what 13 may happen in the future is going to stay with us, and we 14 can't continue to offer the service for the price that the 15 County has been paying effectively for 20 years. On the EMS 16 side, the current proposal would have the County paying what 17 the County was paying, I think, four years ago. So -- and 18 this is not, in my mind, coming to the table because we're 19 both in dire straits economically, or -- or, you know, to say 20 that the State's pushing down mandates or any other thing. 21 This is about the fact that the current funding arrangements 22 for the service that is being delivered is not sustainable. 23 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's my point, is we need 24 to think about a lesser service. 25 MAYOR WAMPLER: And that's obviously your 3-2-11 jcc 61 1 prerogative, and that was one of the things that -- that I 2 had hoped -- we'd all hoped to get to, is what exactly is it 3 that the County would ask us to provide from a service 4 standpoint? And we don't -- we don't have -- I mean, we 5 don't have that yet. 6 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I think that what -- 7 what the deal is, is that you -- you have chosen to combine 8 fire and EMS, and you say it's not on the table to split it. 9 That's one of the bones of contention right there. And the 10 level of service to each one of those could be under 11 contract, but you put them together, and you say that we're 12 going to pay you another additional 500,000 next year. Ain't 13 going to fly. I mean, that's the bottom line. It ain't 14 going to fly. It can't. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mr. Mayor, I mean, I know the 16 Judge and I, and I think maybe Commissioner Oehler have 17 another meeting at 11:00. Don't we? The L.C.R.A.? 18 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. 19 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: You're not going to leave me 20 over here, are you? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Rather than going back over 22 this, can't we go on to airport and animal control? 23 MAYOR WAMPLER: I just wanted to, at least from my 24 standpoint, make clear the rationale for this conversation. 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Animal control? Want to go 3-2-11 jcc 62 1 there? 2 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah, let's go to animal 3 control. That's -- that's something we don't do 100 percent. 4 That's why the percentages are reversed. 5 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Don't we need to -- to ask for a 6 listing or request what kind of service you want, and isn't 7 that what comes next? 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Are you talking about fire and EMS? 9 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Yeah. 10 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Yeah. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, this may create problems for 12 Chief Ojeda, but I think essentially what we've asked for is 13 when you send an ambulance to a county residence, don't send 14 a fire truck with it. Now, from Chief Ojeda's protocols and 15 things of that nature, that's what I've heard consistently 16 over and over, and for the most part, that doesn't occur, but 17 in some instances it does. Or -- or there's a -- a truck 18 that comes out into the ETJ, and then there's some sort of 19 marrying up there. If there's a fire issue, there's a fire 20 issue. If it's an EMS issue, there's an EMS issue. 21 COUNCILMAN GROSS: We're not hauling gravel. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. 23 COUNCILMAN GROSS: When you're doing chest 24 compressions and breathing for somebody, I'd like to see 25 somebody in that big red truck to meet your ambulance. 3-2-11 jcc 63 1 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Well, and I'm certainly not 2 an expert in this area, but as I understand it, as a cost 3 containment issue, we have two personnel assigned to each 4 box. And in the -- in the Class 1 type calls, where it is 5 life-threatening, because -- like Scott was saying, you need 6 two people in the back of the ambulance working on that 7 individual, and that's the reason for sending that additional 8 unit. But that's only done when it's necessary, and it's a 9 matter of trying to keep the cost in line, but yet provide 10 the service. And, you know, if -- if you all decide you 11 don't want that service, then, you know, we need to think 12 about that. 13 COUNCILMAN GROSS: But be careful, because you 14 don't want it to be, "Well, he's hurt; let's drag him across 15 the border." 16 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think that's a decision for 17 us to make, the level of service. And I think it's a level 18 that -- decision you have to make based on what your cost 19 will be to us, or your -- your charges to us for the service 20 that we ask for. I don't think it's up to another entity to 21 decide what the -- what the protocol's going to be for 22 another. 23 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: We -- 24 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: We ask you for a price; you 25 give us a price. If we take it, we take it, and we tell you 3-2-11 jcc 64 1 what we want at that price. 2 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Well, that's why -- 3 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You either do or you don't. 4 That's where we are. 5 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: That's why I said at our last 6 meeting, we've got to determine the level of service you 7 desire before we can determine price. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: I think we pretty well said 9 what we want. We just can't get the price. Except if this 10 is the price we got, it's not acceptable. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think there's -- there's 12 some interplay with protocol the Chief feels compelled to 13 follow, and I certainly respect his -- his feelings as a 14 professional in that area, and I -- you know, there could be 15 some liability issues that he's thinking about and other 16 things along that line. And I think we -- we've tried to 17 indicate our preference. To the -- to the extent they 18 collide with what he feels like he can legitimately or 19 realistically do, you know, so be it. There may have to be 20 some adjustments to that. But to the extent that doesn't 21 actually happen, yes, I think we understand we got. In that 22 respect. 23 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I certainly agree with that, 24 Judge, and I think that the point is that we don't want to 25 shortchange the constituents out there that are depending on 3-2-11 jcc 65 1 us, and let's be careful in our selection of the level of 2 service so that we don't do that. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Well, I think what we've got to 4 relate to that, if we contract with an outside provider, 5 they're not going to have fire trucks. That's the bottom 6 line. 7 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: And they -- 8 JUDGE TINLEY: They're going to have -- they're 9 going to have professionally trained people and appropriate 10 equipment to do their job, but they're not going to have any 11 fire trucks that they're going to bring with them. 12 COUNCILMAN GROSS: But they're going to need three. 13 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: They're going to need three 14 on the crew, and they're going to have to be trained. I 15 mean, that's the difference. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: How they -- you know, how they 17 structure it will be something that would be contractually 18 established so that the level of service to our citizens is 19 an adequate level of service. 20 MAYOR WAMPLER: To the extent that that service 21 level structure would involve support from the city of 22 Kerrville, that support would come at a cost. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: I understand. I understand. Do we 24 go on to animal control or airport? 25 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Animal control. 3-2-11 jcc 66 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. We're at animal control. 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Seems easy. 3 JUDGE TINLEY: Okay. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: To me, I mean, the -- the 5 City's response back fixes the problems -- the few problems 6 that were in that, that we thought were fixed last time. 7 Mainly, the level of service in the city was supposed to be 8 the same as it is the in county. Somehow, that didn't 9 happen. And the City's fine with that. All the revenue goes 10 to the county, and all the cases are filed in county courts. 11 I mean, that's -- the department is run uniformly across the 12 county, and that's my feeling. The City gets -- I mean, you 13 know, there are more -- clearly more of the work effort, both 14 calls, bites, any way you look at it, that are concentrated 15 more in the city than the county. But I don't have any 16 problem with it being a county function. So, I mean -- 17 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, I know, as long as we 18 can get some concessions on some of these other things. I 19 mean, why should we, you know, do -- do 100 percent of the 20 service whenever -- you know, I mean, and it's just fine, 21 evidently, that we're doing it, from a cost standpoint for 22 the city folks. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: If we're going to assume somebody 24 else's obligation, you want a quid pro quo, is what you're 25 saying, Commissioner? 3-2-11 jcc 67 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: That's what I'm saying. 2 JUDGE TINLEY: Let's go talk about -- 3 MAYOR WAMPLER: Wait a minute. Wait a minute, 4 Bruce. I mean, the county residents that reside within the 5 corporate city limits of Kerrville contribute about 6 $7 million to your general fund, and a little over a million 7 dollars to your Road and Bridge fund. So -- 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: You're talking about a 9 general fund of the county to run county business. 10 MAYOR WAMPLER: And I live in the county. 11 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Well, we all pay it. 12 MAYOR WAMPLER: So, I mean, we get a little bit too 13 far outside -- we get too far down the road of saying -- 14 positioning ourselves as "us versus them" situation here with 15 regard to service delivery, and by saying we're providing 16 everything, well, wait a minute. People in the city are 17 paying county taxes. 18 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Of course. They are the same 19 services people in the county pay. 20 MAYOR WAMPLER: In the county, okay, right. So, 21 from the standpoint of saying, well, you know, if you object 22 or want some other subsidy to provide animal control, for 23 instance, because that doesn't comport with the budgeting 24 process for the area outside the city just doesn't make sense 25 to me as a county taxpayer. 3-2-11 jcc 68 1 JUDGE TINLEY: Mr. Mayor, the notion that the 2 citizens of the city of Kerrville are being shortchanged for 3 what they're paying in the county taxes, this has been 4 repeated numerous times, most recently by yourself publicly 5 through the local media. We got a lot of things we can look 6 at. How much crime occurs within the city of Kerrville that 7 those folks ends up in our jail and we provide for those? 8 The jail has -- is a tremendous cost. We'd love to hand that 9 to you. I'd trade you for the library in a second. We've 10 got all the court systems, with the exception of the Class C 11 municipal courts that you run, and those are a tremendous 12 amount, together with all of what goes with them, the 13 indigent defense for the lawyers that are paid, the 14 prosecution services, on and on it goes. Land records in our 15 County Clerk's office, probably the majority of those 16 records, because of the smaller tracts, density and so forth, 17 involve city property and city residents. You've got all 18 those other records in the County Clerk's office. Juvenile 19 probation services, that alone, that budget is over a million 20 dollars. What's it up to? About 1.2 now, total? 21 MS. HARGIS: Mm-hmm. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: How many of those children come out 23 of the city? And I can go on and on and on. There are 24 things that we just provide different functions for what they 25 pay. So, the notion that they're being shortchanged for a 3-2-11 jcc 69 1 lower tax rate is -- that's not a viable argument. 2 MAYOR WAMPLER: How many of those services -- 3 JUDGE TINLEY: I'd just as soon not get into it. 4 MAYOR WAMPLER: How many of those services are 5 discretionary on the part of the County, in terms of you 6 could choose to provide them or not provide them? 7 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Zero. 8 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: Almost none. 9 MS. HARGIS: Zero. 10 JUDGE TINLEY: Probably true. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But the other side of that coin 12 is, what the city residents are paying for their taxes are 13 higher than the higher taxes. They're getting utilities, 14 which the City makes revenue off of. They get increased fire 15 service and increased police service. That's basically it. 16 They're paying a whole lot of -- they're paying more than the 17 county taxpayers for that additional bit. Roads are pretty 18 much a wash. We go round and round on roads and things of 19 that nature, but the -- I mean, reality is, city residents 20 are paying for increased emergency services, and they're 21 making a choice to live in the city, and they're willing to 22 pay that amount. And those that live in the county 23 understand they're not going to get that level of emergency 24 services. So I think, you know, I'm like the Judge a little 25 bit; I'm tired of every time we meet, or -- or open the paper 3-2-11 jcc 70 1 up, I read that. This is not a true statement. And we've 2 looked at it pretty in-depth since your last statement in the 3 press, and it's just not true. We have the numbers to -- 4 MAYOR WAMPLER: What's not true? 5 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The fact that the city -- 6 JUDGE TINLEY: City residents are getting 7 shortchanged. 8 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- residents are getting 9 shortchanged because they're paying county taxes too is not a 10 true statement. 11 MAYOR WAMPLER: I never said we were getting 12 shortchanged. I said the city residents contribute 13 $7 million to your general fund and $1 million to your Road 14 and Bridge fund. That's all I've said. That's all I said. 15 I never sat in that chair and said we were getting 16 shortchanged. That word never came out of my mind. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: "Shortchanged" may not have 18 been a word you chose. 19 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. Just to be clear on that. 20 Let's go to the next thing. 21 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Well, aren't -- isn't the 22 County required by state law to have animal control? Isn't 23 that a part of your function that is a state mandate? 24 JUDGE TINLEY: Not within the city. 25 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Okay. 3-2-11 jcc 71 1 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: City has their own ordinances 2 and own authority. 3 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: I meant, though, by state 4 law. Do you have to have -- 5 JUDGE TINLEY: We have to have an animal control 6 function, yeah. 7 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: Yes, okay. 8 JUDGE TINLEY: Mm-hmm. Airport. You're proposing 9 just to split the M & O cost, maintenance and operation. 10 Obviously, we've -- the capital structure has been a split. 11 You're not proposing to in any way interfere with the -- the 12 organizational structure out there with the Airport Board or 13 how they operate or what they do? 14 MAYOR WAMPLER: Correct. 15 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The only question I have, and 16 maybe I just don't understand it, is under your -- under the 17 capital improvements. There's a capital improvements CIP 18 approved annually by both City and County, and I think that's 19 currently how it's going on out there. I mean, there might 20 be a few small projects that come in under some of their 21 grants and TexDOT things, but if it's a big project, 22 certainly, once approved, it's in the budget. Next item is 23 no capital improvements exceeding 5,000 without prior 24 approval by City and County. What's the intent -- what's the 25 purpose of that? 3-2-11 jcc 72 1 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, first of all, I think the 2 purpose is -- is to have a plan for capital improvements at 3 the airport, and to follow that plan. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The one above that says that. 5 MAYOR WAMPLER: No, right. Number two, we were 6 recently contacted for -- to gain our participation in the 7 construction of a parking lot at the airport. That is a 8 capital improvement that is not part of a plan, where there's 9 no budgets, no long-term operational details forthcoming that 10 I know of. Just, "We want to build a parking lot for 11 long-term storage of cars so that we can have a revenue 12 stream out there." 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: City got an actual request, or 14 level of interest? 15 MAYOR WAMPLER: We were requested by the Airport 16 Board or the Airport Manager to come up and help with 17 construction of a parking lot, to engage in some process 18 related to construction of a parking lot. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Steve, the Airport Board 20 president, has a -- 21 MR. KING: Steve King, president. That's untrue. 22 There was a level of interest that was -- I brought it up on 23 an agenda item on the board's -- at the board meeting as a 24 possible way to increase revenue at the airport. To the -- 25 it's been something we've had in mind for a long time. We've 3-2-11 jcc 73 1 got 200 cars that park out there almost all the time, and no 2 one's there. And we brought that up at a board meeting, and 3 it was strictly -- in the past, we've done some stuff with 4 the County and the City building parking lots. We built one 5 over at Mooney, built one where EMS is right now; the City 6 and County built that for -- for secondary parking over there 7 next to the EMS thing. And it was just a matter of, I asked 8 Bruce to run it by the City and see if -- if we got ready to 9 actually submit some return on investment, some sort of a -- 10 a profile on this parking lot to see if it would pay for 11 itself, whether the City would even be interested in 12 participating. We've had some -- we've had some 13 conversations with the City wherein they've told our Airport 14 Manager, Mr. McKenzie, that they weren't really interested in 15 participating in any projects like that. So, we need to kind 16 of know -- we were just kind of wanting to know whether, in 17 the future, there would be even the interest from the City, 18 or it would be something that airport would have to try to 19 figure out how to fund themselves with the County. 20 MAYOR WAMPLER: And, Steve, to be clear -- 21 MR. KING: There's no proposal on the table. There 22 cannot be a proposal, because I have to propose that through 23 the Airport Board on an agenda item, and it was never a 24 proposal made. 25 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, to be clear, I don't believe 3-2-11 jcc 74 1 the City has said we would not participate. What I'm saying 2 is, is that -- is that parking lot, or any other things 3 that's been contemplated from the standpoint of capital 4 improvement by that board, part of the plan? Part of a plan 5 that's been agreed upon by the City and the County as owners 6 of the facility? 7 MR. KING: Any -- any -- we have a CIP budget. We 8 have -- go ahead. 9 MR. VOGT: Part of this conversation -- I'm Fred 10 Vogt, the vice president of that board. Part of the -- part 11 of what Steve was talking about initially was to include that 12 in our master plan. We're in a -- we got a consultant going 13 through a master plan right now, what y'all approved through 14 the process of 50/50, and it was in our CIP. So, those ideas 15 get floated out there. Steve's a very aggressive guy, you 16 know. He said, "Well, let me see what this cost would be 17 before we pay a consultant to find out what that cost would 18 be." That's why he went to the City to do that. But you 19 have a cut -- you'll have a -- you'll have a decision point 20 with the master plan at that airport, and it's got another 21 eight months to go before -- before it will be presented to 22 the County and to the City as the owners. We're a fast -- 23 we're a fast-moving board. We're trying to get this thing 24 front-loaded, make sure we don't ask for something that's 25 totally out of -- 'cause we didn't know what the cost would 3-2-11 jcc 75 1 be. I think that's all we asked Bruce to do. 2 MR. KING: We made -- we're in the middle of this 3 master plan. It was land -- all the airport land has to be 4 -- or is delegated for a use, some sort of use when they make 5 this plan. So, we had the property behind the terminal, and 6 we had discussed the possibility of using it as a parking 7 lot. We had to take it to the master plan people to see 8 whether we could use that for a parking lot, whether that had 9 -- whether their planners had another use they had in mind 10 for that part -- for that piece of land. But anything we've 11 ever done in the CIP has always either gone through our CIP 12 budget -- we present it once a year to you guys. As you guys 13 know, we have -- our CIP is on file with you guys and the 14 County. And, I mean, it's more -- no more than a wish list 15 of things we'd like to have, but we're not going to -- we 16 know most of them we're not -- probably not going to get. 17 Any time we build anything at the airport, or we 18 propose to build at the airport, it has to pass a return on 19 investment; it has to have a return on investment, just like 20 the T-hangars. We'd like to build some T-hangars out there. 21 We don't have the funding for it, but we're out looking for 22 ways to fund it. We're looking for private people to fund 23 it, looking at the State to help us fund it, and eventually 24 we'll come to you guys and say, "Hey, are you guys interested 25 in funding it?" And the first thing you're going to ask is, 3-2-11 jcc 76 1 "How is it going to pay back? What are we going to get for 2 our money? What kind of revenue is it going to generate for 3 the airport?" So, we're not sitting around out there, 4 sitting on our hands. We're trying to figure out a way to 5 make that airport make money so that it can take a load off 6 of both of you guys. 7 And, I mean, that's what we do every month. We try 8 to figure out a way to make it run more efficiently, and -- 9 and bring forth to the community and let them realize that 10 that is the gateway to the -- that is the gateway to our 11 city, other than the part -- the piece off of Interstate 10 12 that is the other gateway to our city. And I encourage some 13 of you members of both of your boards to come to our airport 14 sometime. Actually, there's two county roads that will get 15 you there. (Laughter.) And come out there and actually 16 visit. David comes out there, 'cause he flies, and I see him 17 out there all the time. But some of you other guys, we'd 18 encourage you to come out, visit with Bruce. He's got an 19 office. If you have concerns about the airport, if you have 20 concerns about the information you're getting from the 21 airport, come out there and ask Bruce about it. It's a 22 really nice place. We'd love to have you out there for 23 something other than a ribbon cutting. 24 MAYOR WAMPLER: Steve, if I could ask a question, 25 getting back to your return on investment point, was -- is 3-2-11 jcc 77 1 the Airport Board currently, or have you in the past, 2 contemplated giving a T-hangar, if one were available, to the 3 Civil Air Patrol? 4 MR. KING: We discussed it at our last meeting. We 5 discussed that Mooney -- we discussed -- 6 MAYOR WAMPLER: What's the return on investment on 7 that? 8 MR. KING: It's -- go ahead. Fred brought it up. 9 MAYOR WAMPLER: Are T-hangars owned by the airport? 10 In other words, are the T-hangars an asset -- a joint asset 11 of the City and County? 12 MR. VOGT: You own some. I think you own all the 13 T-hangars, the ones that are there right now. The new 14 T-hangars -- we're way ahead of this whole thing. What 15 you're talking about, Civil Air Patrol, is that Mooney has 16 lots of empty space, and we were -- we have in our -- our 17 strategic initiatives, which the County and the City both sat 18 in on developing, one of the items in there was to provide 19 services to something like the Civil Air Patrol, allow them 20 to -- to come out there and, on a no-cost basis, provide a 21 hangar for them so they could run that airplane out of there, 22 as opposed to being somewhere else in the county. 23 MAYOR WAMPLER: How does that benefit the airport? 24 MR. VOGT: It benefits -- it benefits the people, 25 the citizens of Kerr County and Kerrville. That was the 3-2-11 jcc 78 1 thought behind it. Again, that was a strategic initiative. 2 When Mooney -- that was a target of opportunity. When Mooney 3 opened up or left all those spaces available, it made sense 4 to me to ask Mooney first if they -- if we could use the 5 Civil Air -- could we put a Civil Air Patrol airplane there? 6 I was expecting them to say, "Of course, let's just do that 7 right away." They wanted an abatement of the rent. In fact, 8 we didn't ask for the new hangar. This is just an abatement 9 of the rent that Mooney -- the small amount they pay us with 10 the -- with the facility they have right now, to abate that 11 rent by $200 a month. That was a win-win for everybody. I 12 think it's a win to have the Civil Air Patrol flying out of 13 an airport that has an instrument approach. It's a $300,000 14 airplane; it's fully instrumented. Right now, they fly out 15 of Tierra Linda. They can't land there at night. And they 16 do provide services to the county, to the state and to 17 everybody else, as you know. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Let me -- if I can add to what 19 benefit to the county if the airplane's stationed there, it's 20 going to be buying our fuel, and it has federal -- the 21 airplane is paid for by the federal government. 22 MR. VOGT: Yes. 23 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I think the public safety 24 issue of having that at an airport where it can be utilized 25 is huge. 3-2-11 jcc 79 1 MR. VOGT: Sure. It gets to fly at night, -- 2 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Basically, -- 3 MR. VOGT: -- in weather. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: -- at the cost of abating -- or 5 possibly abating a little bit of rent. I mean, I would be in 6 favor of using -- you know, if it came to us to vote on it. 7 I think this is probably your -- if you're suggesting should 8 that board have the ability to make that decision, in my 9 mind, they should have that. 10 MR. VOGT: We didn't get to that point. 11 COMMISSIONER LETZ: They should also have the 12 authority to do -- I think it was in the budget -- I know it 13 was talked about during the budget there, putting up a sign. 14 Right now, I think those types of things that board should 15 have the authority to do. Should they have authority to go 16 build a whole bunch of T-hangars without us knowing about it? 17 No. And I don't mind a dollar limit in here as to that, but 18 I think there's a certain amount of kind of running that 19 airport that they're doing a fantastic job, and we should let 20 them continue to do it. That's just kind of a -- you know, 21 that's just -- should that be 5,000? 22 MAYOR WAMPLER: Well, as Judge Tinley asked me in 23 the preamble to this piece, is it the intention of the City 24 of Kerrville to interfere with or to in any way, you know, 25 keep the board from its work? And the answer remains no. 3-2-11 jcc 80 1 COMMISSIONER LETZ: But I think -- I mean, the 2 question as to $5,000 is what triggered that item, because 3 the item above it says capital improvement projects, or -- 4 and, you know, they're -- and, you know, Jeannie has just 5 come to us and wants us to raise what we consider a capital 6 item in the county. I think many use 25,000 as that number. 7 I mean, we use a smaller number. I don't know what the 8 City's number is. And I think that even if it's a capital 9 item, if it's under a certain amount, it really doesn't -- 10 it's -- 11 JUDGE TINLEY: Expense item, not a capital item. 12 COMMISSIONER LETZ: An expense item. And an 13 expense item, the Airport Board should have authority to do. 14 MR. KING: On that point, I mean, we submit a 15 budget to you guys -- both of you guys every year. You have 16 the right to approve the budget or disapprove it. There was 17 discussion in the last budget on the items we went -- I got 18 it right here where y'all made all the comments on the 19 budget. Within that budget, I think we have -- I feel like 20 we should have discretionary spending in that budget to 21 spend -- to spend that money, like on this sign, the sign we 22 built out at the front to identify the airport. I mean, once 23 you approve that budget, you know, if you don't -- if you're 24 not happy with amount of money in the budget, then you just 25 bring that up when the budget's presented. But as far as we 3-2-11 jcc 81 1 have some contingency money and stuff like that, as far as 2 moving that around to spend on this particular item or this 3 particular item, we did that with our master plan. We needed 4 some money to get the master plan started. We spent that 5 money out of our -- one of our contingency funds. And, you 6 know, we really don't -- I don't really think that requires 7 input from the County and the City in the middle of the 8 budget. And I guess that's what it comes down to. 9 If you have a question, we'd more than happy to 10 have you come attend one of our meetings. You can sit down 11 and we can discuss the budget. We discuss the budget and the 12 expenditures every month at a meeting, all right? And we go 13 over detailed financials in that meeting and discuss what the 14 projections are, how we're going to make our budget and stuff 15 like that. But if you'll look at our budget over the last 16 five years, it's gone down every year. We saved -- our 17 operating agreement with the County has saved us $80,000 over 18 the previous two years of our previous operating -- operating 19 agreement that we had with the City. So, we're -- our main 20 concern with the board and the way we structure this board is 21 to try to eventually make the airport -- and we have a 22 strategic initiative plan, I think, that we go over once a 23 month. We go over different parts of that plan, what our 24 plan for the airport is, and that's to try to make it more 25 economically viable for both of you and make it less of a 3-2-11 jcc 82 1 burden on you. I mean, it's -- and still provide the service 2 that we provide to the airport. Any other questions? Thank 3 you. 4 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- just -- I guess the 5 other item on the list from the City that I had a question 6 on, the current agreement says that the -- on the budget, 7 annual budget, that the Airport Board will present it, and it 8 has to be approved by the City and the County. And if we 9 can't come to an agreement, it reverts to the previous year's 10 budget. The plan here is a two-year average. Then it says 11 200,000 each, or 400,000. What's wrong with what we have 12 right now? I mean, you know, I'm not sure what the total 13 budget's going to be this year. I don't know that it changes 14 the numbers a whole lot. Maybe they're a little bit better 15 off this way; I don't know. 16 MAYOR WAMPLER: I think those are based just on the 17 last few years -- was it two years, five years historical 18 spending? Nothing magical about that. 19 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I think on the -- I kind of 20 like the one -- the revert to the previous year or -- or 21 agree to it. And the reason is that there are -- some of 22 the -- some of their expenses are driven by what is going on 23 at the capital side. And we have gone -- or we jointly, the 24 City and the County, have spent a huge amount of money, and 25 TexDOT, feds have spent a whole bunch more the past five 3-2-11 jcc 83 1 years out there, and for that reason, there are -- some of 2 the costs are coming down a little. Those projects are 3 coming to an end. They should be ending up in the next nine 4 months, certainly; six months, probably. And with that, 5 there should be a little bit less expenditure on some of the 6 -- because of having them oversee some of that, some 7 engineering-type things and all that. So, I think that it's 8 a -- and I kind of like the system the way it is, but I'm not 9 real thirsty for something else. It's just a matter of what 10 we have now seems to work pretty good. I see their budget 11 going down. They're trying to go down. I can't imagine 12 we're not going to agree with it, figure out a way to agree 13 with them. But, you know, these are both pretty minor 14 points. And we can get, maybe, the County Attorney and the 15 City Attorney together and write a new interlocal based on 16 those kind of parameters, and we can work out the details 17 there, at least get something moving forward. 18 MAYOR WAMPLER: So, Jon, are you saying you don't 19 object to the -- going back to the 50/50 funding scheme on 20 the airport? 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: No. 22 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. 23 JUDGE TINLEY: No, we probably should, I suppose. 24 COMMISSIONER LETZ: I mean, my only -- you know, 25 from -- I just -- but I don't want that -- you know, at our 3-2-11 jcc 84 1 next meeting, to say we're paying more at the airport; y'all 2 should pay more at the library. I mean, I don't want -- you 3 know, you've said you want to split these apart. 4 MAYOR WAMPLER: No, we're not saying that. What 5 you have -- I mean, that's not going to happen. 6 COMMISSIONER LETZ: So -- I mean, but if you -- 7 MAYOR WAMPLER: But, by the same token, we don't 8 want to hear, well, we're having, you know, to step up. I 9 mean, we've already heard that from the Judge and Bruce this 10 morning, that somehow the numbers have to match back up. I'm 11 saying we've got an obligation, I think, at a minimum to fund 12 50/50 on -- I mean, we own that airport jointly. 13 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Mm-hmm. 14 MAYOR WAMPLER: And I'd like to think that we can 15 come together and fund the library, okay? So -- but I'm -- I 16 don't want to tie the two together any more. 17 COMMISSIONER LETZ: Okay. I just want to make 18 sure -- I have -- certainly, we -- I have no problem with the 19 City picking up half of that funding. 20 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. 21 COMMISSIONER LETZ: And I don't understand why you 22 want to do it, but I don't have a problem with y'all wanting 23 to do it. Okay. 24 MAYOR WAMPLER: Any other questions on this? 25 JUDGE TINLEY: Appreciate it. Not sure what we 3-2-11 jcc 85 1 accomplished. I'm sure we did accomplish something. But 2 let's talk -- talk frequently. And we're mindful of your 3 concerns about hoping to have at least some sort of draft 4 concept in place by the end of this month. We'll try and 5 help you -- help you get there. I don't think either of us 6 can make any guarantees, except that we'll do our best to do 7 that. 8 MAYOR WAMPLER: Judge, again, the timing issue was 9 something that I believe we all agreed upon at our last 10 meeting. 11 JUDGE TINLEY: We agreed that was your request. We 12 agreed that the County made -- just made an agreement that we 13 will honor that request. 14 MAYOR WAMPLER: I don't remember hearing it that 15 way. 16 JUDGE TINLEY: I think what you heard was silence. 17 And silence is not acquiescence, necessarily. 18 COMMISSIONER LETZ: The -- one thing, and we -- I 19 know I have to get to another meeting with the Judge. The -- 20 what was not on the -- we responded to a couple of services 21 that we do probably need to talk about to get together -- 22 they're not huge. The agreement we had -- the City's had 23 with the county on road construction, resurfacing, that was 24 something that was sent over to be addressed, and has not 25 been addressed. I think we need an interlocal agreement to 3-2-11 jcc 86 1 be real clear. And the other one is environmental health, 2 and that needs to be real clear, levels of responsibilities. 3 There have been some instances in the past where the County's 4 been involved and the City decided they want to get involved, 5 or vice-versa. There needs to be a county department. We 6 have some authority levels that you in the city don't have, 7 but it needs to be clear. If it's -- if the County's 8 involved, that's -- you know, once it gets to the County, it 9 stays in the county. You can't go back to the city at that 10 point in that department. And there has been a level of -- 11 Bruce has a lot more knowledge of these. 12 COMMISSIONER OEHLER: If you want to know something 13 about what goes on in environmental health, ask me. I get 14 calls about three times a week. 15 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: What is the time frame 16 request? Mid-March? 17 COUNCILMAN MOTHERAL: End of this month. 18 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: End of the month. 19 JUDGE TINLEY: March 31. 20 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: We can do that. I can tell 21 you what I want to do today. 22 JUDGE TINLEY: Well -- 23 COUNCILMAN GROSS: Why don't you guys just leave 24 Buster with us? 25 COMMISSIONER BALDWIN: The answer's no. 3-2-11 jcc 87 1 (Laughter.) 2 JUDGE TINLEY: You asked for it; you got it. 3 MAYOR WAMPLER: Okay. If there's no other 4 questions or comments, the meeting's adjourned at 10:56. 5 JUDGE TINLEY: Commissioners Court will be 6 adjourned likewise. 7 (Joint meeting was adjourned at 10:56 a.m.) 8 - - - - - - - - - - 9 10 11 12 STATE OF TEXAS | 13 COUNTY OF KERR | 14 The above and foregoing is a true and complete 15 transcription of my stenotype notes taken in my capacity as 16 official reporter for the Commissioners Court of Kerr County, 17 Texas, at the time and place heretofore set forth. 18 DATED at Kerrville, Texas, this 11th day of March, 2011. 19 20 JANNETT PIEPER, Kerr County Clerk 21 BY: _________________________________ Kathy Banik, Deputy County Clerk 22 Certified Shorthand Reporter 23 24 25 3-2-11 jcc