Laserfiche WebLink
City Council Meeting <br />Aug. 12. 2002 <br />Page 18 <br /> <br />the 60/40% is a rough approximation of the population based upon his <br />examination of the Attorney General's opinion that are available in some case <br />law, the percentage basis on population is probably a fair way to allocate the <br />cost. <br /> <br />Mayor Pfiester said he had a meeting with Judge Superville about <br />understanding his position and then the recital that the City Attorney Schenk <br />patched to the contract and it says this contract is for emergency medical <br />service to be provided outside the incorporated city limits of Paris. Mayor <br />Pfiester asked Mr. Shaver to read that paragraph. <br /> <br />Mr. Shaver said this is the second paragraph of the preamble of the contract <br />and he read the paragraph as follows: ~' WHEREAS, the City of Paris, Paris, <br />Texas, and the County of Lamar, State of Texas, desire to enter into a contract <br />pursuant to said Chapter 791 whereby the City of Paris will provide emergency <br />medical services to that portion of Lamar County located outside of the city <br />limits of Paris in return for a contribution by the County of Lamar to defray the <br />cost of providing such emergency medical services." <br /> <br />Mayor Pfiester stated that the Judge circled that portion of the contract and he <br />also referred to Section 14 of the contract. The Mayor said the Judge felt that <br />what this means is the City of Paris is responsible for paying, according to this <br />contract, 100% of the cost of ambulance service inside the city limits of Paris <br />and 60% of the cost outside the city limits of Paris and the county is only <br />responsible for the 40%. City Attorney Schenk interjected that to do that, you <br />would completely ignore the entire rest of the contract, which would mean that <br />the city would underwrite the shortfall for everyone in that part of the county <br />that is in the city, plus the city would underwrite a larger portion of the shortfall <br />for those not located in the city than the county does. <br /> <br />Mr. Shaver stated that the paragraph in the preamble has nothing to do with the <br />interpretation of the contract. Mr. Shaver pointed out, from the letter that he <br />had written to Mr. Schenk, a case in 1927 that states that you do not look at the <br />preamble to interpret a contract. You look at the contract to determine what the <br /> <br /> <br />